scholarly journals Evaluation of healing of varicose ulcers after endovenous laser ablation of great saphenous vein

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 1707
Author(s):  
Hatem Hussein Mohamed ◽  
Beshoy Magdy Alshahat ◽  
Mamdouh Mohamed Almezaien
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Veins ◽  
P Value ◽  
University Hospitals ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
A Prospective Study

Background: Varicose veins are permanently swollen, tortuous and elongated while standing due to back flow of blood caused by incompetent valve closure which result in venous congestion .they are of two types primary and secondary varicosities .The main symptoms are tingling, itching, pain, fatigue, a heavy feeling in the legs especially if one has to stand for a long time. Ulcers and thrombophlebitis are possible complications. The aim of this study is to assess the outcome of laser ablation of great saphenous vein on healing of varicose ulcers.Methods: A prospective study conducted at Suez Canal University Hospitals and Nasser Institute Hospital in Cairo on 20 patients complaining varicose ulcers due to incompetent saphenous femoral junction.Results: All patients had improvement in Abrdeen Varicose vein questionnaire after endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) during the first, second and third follow up visits when compared with preoperative scores. The Aberdeen Varicose vein questionnaire ranged from 8 to 18 before the procedure, with a mean of 12.11, ranged from 3 to 11 at the first follow up visit with a mean of 7.07, ranged from 2 to 10 at the second follow up visit with a mean of 4.89 and ranged from 2 to 10 at the third follow up visit with a mean of 3.85, p value is less than 0.001 compared to the pre-operative data. During the assessment of the patients of our study after 6 months of continuous follow up, we found that the healing rate of the patients who underwent laser ablation of great saphenous vein were (91.67) (p=0.769).Conclusions: EVLA of great saphenous vein leads to better wound healing rates in treating patients with varicose ulcers.

scholarly journals Great saphenous vein mechanochemical sclerotherapy versus laser ablation in treatment of varicose vein

QJM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 113 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M I Ibrahim ◽  
K A Nabil ◽  
A M Abdalmageed ◽  
G K Hussein
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Veins ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Procedural Pain ◽  
Procedure Time ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
High Incidence

Abstract Background Endovenous thermal techniques, such as endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), are the recommended treatment for truncal varicose veins. But it requires the administration of tumescent anaesthesia, which can be uncomfortable. Non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques, such as mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) have some advantages such as less post-procedural pain and less procedure time . MOCA combines physical damage to endothelium using sharply terminated metal claws, with the injection of a liquid sclerosant. Introduction Chronic venous insufficiency is one of the most common medical conditions among highly developed societies. The majority of patients (70%) suffer from saphenous veins incompetency. The aim of this study was to evaluate the primary efficacy of mechanochemical sclerotherapy by phlebogriffe (flebogrif) in comparison to laser ablation in treatment of varicose vein. Methods/Design The study was conducted on 30 patients, including 16 women and 14 men divided into 2 groups. The first group (15 patients) was treated with ablation with Flebogrif (MOCA) to treat varicose veins. The second group (15 patients) was treated with ablation with Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA). All patients were qualified based on the ultrasound in a standing position confirming incompetence of the great saphenous vein or small saphenous vein. The primary outcomes are intra-procedural pain and technical efficacy at 1 year, defined as complete occlusion of target vein segment and assessed using duplex ultrasound. Secondary outcomes are post-procedural pain, analgesia use, procedure time, clinical severity, bruising, complications, satisfaction, time taken to return to daily activities and/or work, and cost-effectiveness analysis following EVLA or MOCA. Both groups will be evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. Results The total primary obliteration rate after 3 days and 1 month was 100% with both EVLA-RTF and MOCA while after 3 months (ms) was 93.3% with both groups. After 6ms the total primary obliteration rate was 93.3% with EVLA-RTF and 86.7% with MOCA. The Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) presented similar and durable improvements in both groups between 3days and 6 months. While there is significant less post procedural pain, ecchymosis and bruises with the MOCA method and so high incidence of use of analgesics in EVLA patients than in MOCA group. The median time for return to work was 1 day after both treatments. No severe adverse events were observed. Discussion The aim of the study is to evaluate whether MOCA is superior to EVLA. The two main hypotheses are that MOCA may cause less initial pain and disability allowing rapid post-operative recovery. The second hypothesis is the efficacy, which may lead to increased recurrence and affect longer term quality of life, increasing the requirement for secondary procedures. Conclusions EVLA and MOCA have similarly high great saphenous vein (GSV) obliteration rates in the long term, and the treatments are equally effective clinically. While according to post procedural pain, ecchymosis, Bruises and long procedural time. The study showed significant high incidence of occurrence in EVLA group than MOCA group. So according to these items there is significant superiority of MOCA over EVLA.

Endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein – Varying energy may not affect outcome

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos S Nejm ◽  
Jorge RR Timi ◽  
Walter Boim de Araújo ◽  
Filipe C Caron
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Veins ◽  
Duplex Ultrasound ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Vein Occlusion ◽  
Saphenous Veins ◽  
Occlusion Rate

Objectives To determine great saphenous vein occlusion rate after endovenous laser ablation using the 1470-nm bare-fiber diode laser to supply either 7 W or 15 W and evaluate procedure-related complications. Method Patients with varicose veins of the lower extremities (CEAP class C2–C6) were randomly assigned to undergo either 7-W (18 patients, 30 limbs) or 15-W (18 patients, 30 limbs) endovenous laser ablation. Duplex ultrasound follow-up was at 3–5 days, 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Results Occlusion rate was 100% in both groups at 3–5 days and 1 month and 86.7% in 7-W and 100% in 15-W patients at both 6 and 12 months, with no difference between groups ( p > 0.05). Four (13.3%) 15-W and 3 (10%) 7-W patients had paresthesia at 3–5 days, with no difference between groups ( p > 0.05). Conclusions These preliminary data suggest that both techniques are similarly effective in the treatment of varicose great saphenous veins.

A description of the ‘smile sign’ and multi-pass technique for endovenous laser ablation of large diameter great saphenous veins

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 534-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma B Dabbs ◽  
Laurensius E Mainsiouw ◽  
Judith M Holdstock ◽  
Barrie A Price ◽  
Mark S Whiteley
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Diameter Distribution ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Veins ◽  
Vein Diameter

Aims To report on great saphenous vein diameter distribution of patients undergoing endovenous laser ablation for lower limb varicose veins and the ablation technique for large diameter veins. Methods We collected retrospective data of 1929 (943 left leg and 986 right leg) clinically incompetent great saphenous vein diameters treated with endovenous laser ablation over five years and six months. The technical success of procedure, complications and occlusion rate at short-term follow-up are reported. Upon compression, larger diameter veins may constrict asymmetrically rather than concentrically around the laser fibre (the ‘smile sign’), requiring multiple passes of the laser into each dilated segment to achieve complete ablation. Results Of 1929 great saphenous veins, 334 (17.31%) had a diameter equal to or over 15 mm, which has been recommended as the upper limit for endovenous laser ablation by some clinicians. All were successfully treated and occluded upon short-term follow-up. Conclusion We suggest that incompetent great saphenous veins that need treatment can always be treated with endovenous laser ablation, and open surgery should never be recommended on vein diameter alone.

scholarly journals Treatment of recurrent varicose veins of the great saphenous vein by conventional surgery and endovenous laser ablation

2009 ◽  
Vol 50 (5) ◽  
pp. 1106-1113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura van Groenendael ◽  
J. Adam van der Vliet ◽  
Lizel Flinkenflögel ◽  
Elisabeth A. Roovers ◽  
Steven M.M. van Sterkenburg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Veins ◽  
Conventional Surgery ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Recurrent Varicose Veins

scholarly journals A case of recurrent varicose veins due to the multiple fistulas from superficial femoral artery

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 2050313X2092642
Author(s):  
Satoshi Watanabe ◽  
Takafumi Tsuji ◽  
Shinya Fujita ◽  
Soji Nishio ◽  
Eisho Kyo
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Femoral Artery ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Superficial Femoral Artery ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Veins ◽  
Skin Pigmentation ◽  
Duplex Ultrasound ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Recurrent Varicose Veins

Recurrent varicose veins are considered to be caused by the recurrence of reflux but rarely may be secondary to other pathologies. A 39-year-old man complained of right lower leg skin pigmentation, pain and fatigue for several years. Duplex ultrasound revealed that the great saphenous vein diameter at the saphenofemoral junction level was 7.7 cm, and at the knee medial level was 14.4 cm. The reflux time at the proximal great saphenousvein level was 1.85 s. Endovenous laser ablation for dilated and refluxed great saphenous vein was performed. However, 1 year later, the symptoms recurred. Duplex ultrasound suspected abnormal arterial flow from the right superficial femoral artery to the recanalized segment of previously ablated great saphenous vein and anterior accessory saphenous vein. One month later, despite the successful re-endovenous laser ablation, the symptoms recurred. Computed tomography angiography showed three fistulous vessels from superficial femoral artery to anterior accessory saphenous vein. Combined treatments with endovenous laser ablation and coil embolization was performed. Ultimately, the fistulas were obliterated and the patient remained free of symptoms. Varicose veins due to the fistulas from superficial femoral artery are rare and difficult to diagnose but can be entirely treated with the percutaneous approach.

A comparison of three tumescent delivery systems in endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein

Vascular ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 375-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Firat H Altin ◽  
Baris Kutas ◽  
Tevfik Gunes ◽  
Selim Aydin ◽  
Bortecin Eygi
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Veins ◽  
Delivery Systems ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Tumescent Solution ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Different systems for delivering tumescent solution exist in endovenous laser ablation (EVLA). This study evaluated three different tumescent delivery systems in patients with primary varicose veins due to great saphenous vein reflux who were treated with EVLA. In this prospective non-randomized study, 60 patients with isolated GSV varicose veins were divided into three groups. All patients received EVLA treatment. Three different tumescent solution delivery systems were used. Systems consisted of a needle and a syringe in Group 1, a needle connected to an infusion bag system in Group 2 and a peristaltic infiltration pump in Group 3. Tumescent delivery durations were in Group 1: 6.56 SD 1.18 minutes, Group 2: 6.05 SD 2.19 minutes and Group 3: 5.19 SD 1.15 minutes ( P = 0.014). In the outcomes of the study there were no significant difference between groups. Although peristaltic pump systems might provide shorter tumescent delivery durations without hand fatigue, shorter duration does not have any practical importance (about 1 minute and also it is not cost-effective. For delivering tumescent solutions in EVLA procedures, there was no major superiority between systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document