Varicose Vein Surgery

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jovan N. Markovic ◽  
Cynthia K. Shortell
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
The United States ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Venous Disease ◽  
Varicose Vein Surgery

Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a common vascular disorder that affects a significant proportion of the population in the United States and other developed countries. In its advanced stages, CVI significantly reduces patients’ quality of life and imposes a high economic burden on society due to increased direct health care costs and reduced productivity. Favorable clinical results associated with endovascular ablation techniques and patient preference for minimally invasive procedures has led to a shift in which treatment of vein disease is moving from the hospital to the office, allowing a more diverse group of physicians to enter a field that had typically been the domain of surgeons. This chapter reviews the terminology associated with venous disease, indications for varicose vein surgery, preoperative evaluation, procedural planning, endovenous procedures (endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation), surgical vein stripping techniques, and foam sclerotherapy. Tables include Clinical severity, Etiology or Cause, Anatomy, Pathophysiology classification; summary of nomenclature changes for the lower extremity venous system; indications for varicose vein surgery; interrogation points in the venous reflux examination; complications associated with treatment modalities used in the management of CVI; and methods of variceal ablation. Figures show an ultrasonographic image of a saphenous eye, placement of a quartz fiber for laser ablation of the great saphenous vein, a typical saphenofemoral junction, surgical stripping  of the great saphenous vein, and microfoam sclerotherapy. This review contains 9 figures, 6 tables and 73 references.

Varicose Vein Surgery

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jovan N. Markovic ◽  
Cynthia K. Shortell
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
The United States ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Venous Disease ◽  
Varicose Vein Surgery

Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a common vascular disorder that affects a significant proportion of the population in the United States and other developed countries. In its advanced stages, CVI significantly reduces patients’ quality of life and imposes a high economic burden on society due to increased direct health care costs and reduced productivity. Favorable clinical results associated with endovascular ablation techniques and patient preference for minimally invasive procedures has led to a shift in which treatment of vein disease is moving from the hospital to the office, allowing a more diverse group of physicians to enter a field that had typically been the domain of surgeons. This chapter reviews the terminology associated with venous disease, indications for varicose vein surgery, preoperative evaluation, procedural planning, endovenous procedures (endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation), surgical vein stripping techniques, and foam sclerotherapy. Tables include Clinical severity, Etiology or Cause, Anatomy, Pathophysiology classification; summary of nomenclature changes for the lower extremity venous system; indications for varicose vein surgery; interrogation points in the venous reflux examination; complications associated with treatment modalities used in the management of CVI; and methods of variceal ablation. Figures show an ultrasonographic image of a saphenous eye, placement of a quartz fiber for laser ablation of the great saphenous vein, a typical saphenofemoral junction, surgical stripping  of the great saphenous vein, and microfoam sclerotherapy. This review contains 9 figures, 6 tables and 73 references.

scholarly journals Efficacy of varicose vein surgery with preservation of the great safenous vein

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernardo Cunha Senra Barros ◽  
Antonio Luiz de Araujo ◽  
Carlos Eduardo Virgini Magalhães ◽  
Raimundo Luiz Senra Barros ◽  
Stenio Karlos Alvim Fiorelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Veins ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Venous Disease ◽  
Varicose Vein Surgery ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Venous Clinical Severity Score

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of surgical treatment of varicose veins with preservation of the great saphenous vein. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of 15 female patients between 25 and 55 years of age with clinical, etiologic, anatomic and pathophysiologic (CEAP) classification 2, 3 and 4. The patients underwent surgical treatment of primary varicose veins with great saphenous vein (GSV) preservation. Doppler ultrasonography exams were carried out in the first and third months postoperatively. The form of clinical severity of venous disease, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) was completed before and after surgery. We excluded patients with history of deep vein thrombosis, smoking or postoperatively use of elastic stockings or phlebotonics. RESULTS: All patients had improved VCSS (p <0.001) and reduction in the diameter of the great saphenous vein (p <0.001). There was a relationship between VCSS and the GSV caliber, as well as with preoperative CEAP. There was improvement in CEAP class in nine patients when compared with the preoperative period (p <0.001). CONCLUSION: The varicose vein surgery with preservation of the great saphenous vein had beneficial effects to the GSV itself, with decreasing caliber, and to the symptoms when the vein had maximum caliber of 7.5 mm, correlating directly with the CEAP. The decrease in GSV caliber, even without complete abolition of reflux, leads to clinical improvement by decreasing the reflux volume.

scholarly journals Persistent below-knee great saphenous vein reflux after above-knee endovenous laser ablation with 1470-nm laser: a prospective study

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-119
Author(s):  
Walter Junior Boim de Araujo ◽  
Jorge Rufino Ribas Timi ◽  
Carlos Seme Nejm Junior ◽  
Fabiano Luiz Erzinger ◽  
Filipe Carlos Caron
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Venous Disease ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Venous Clinical Severity Score

Abstract Background In endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), the great saphenous vein (GSV) is usually ablated from the knee to the groin, with no treatment of the below-knee segment regardless of its reflux status. However, persistent below-knee GSV reflux appears to be responsible for residual varicosities and symptoms of venous disease. Objectives To evaluate clinical and duplex ultrasound (DUS) outcomes of the below-knee segment of the GSV after above-knee EVLA associated with conventional surgical treatment of varicosities and incompetent perforating veins. Methods Thirty-six patients (59 GSVs) were distributed into 2 groups, a control group (26 GSVs with normal below-knee flow on DUS) and a test group (33 GSVs with below-knee reflux). Above-knee EVLA was performed with a 1470-nm bare-fiber diode laser and supplemented with phlebectomies of varicose tributaries and insufficient perforating-communicating veins through mini-incisions. Follow-up DUS, clinical evaluation using the venous clinical severity score (VCSS), and evaluation of complications were performed at 3-5 days after the procedure and at 1, 6, and 12 months. Results Mean patient age was 45 years, and 31 patients were women (86.12%). VCSS improved in both groups. Most patients in the test group exhibited normalization of reflux, with normal flow at the beginning of follow-up (88.33% of GSVs at 3-5 days and 70% at 1 month). However, in many of these patients reflux eventually returned (56.67% of GSVs at 6 months and 70% at 1 year). Conclusions These data suggest that reflux in the below-knee segment of the GSV was not influenced by the treatment performed.

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.

Inferior selective crossectomy for great saphenous vein incompetence: Our experience

Vascular ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 170853812094725
Author(s):  
Maurizio Pagano ◽  
Giovanna Passaro ◽  
Roberto Flore ◽  
Paolo Tondi
Keyword(s):  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Duplex Ultrasound ◽  
Venous Disease ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Saphenofemoral Junction

Objective To describe the mid-term outcome after inferior selective crossectomy in a subset of patients with symptomatic chronic venous disease and both great saphenous vein and suprasaphenic valve incompetence. Methodsː Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted. During an eight-year period, 1095 ligations of all saphenofemoral junction inferior tributaries and great saphenous vein stripping were performed in 814 Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, Pathophysiology C2–C6 patients. Duplex ultrasound follow-up examinations were performed after 30 days, 6 months, and 2 years, and saphenofemoral junction hemodynamic patterns and varicose veins recurrence rates were evaluated. Results Two hundred and twenty patients completed the two-year follow-up period. At the 30-day Duplex ultrasound evaluations, two different hemodynamic patterns were described. Type 1, with physiological drainage of saphenofemoral junction superior tributaries, was observed in 214 patients. Type 2, without flow in saphenofemoral junction superior tributaries, was observed in six patients. Overall varicose vein recurrence rates were 0, 2.3, and 2.7% at the 30-day, 6-month, and 2-year follow-up examinations, respectively. At the two-year follow-up, Type 1 patients showed 0% varicose vein recurrence, while Type 2 patients showed 100%. Conclusionsː Inferior selective crossectomy seems to be a valid and safe option in case of both suprasaphenic valve and great saphenous vein incompetence. Duplex ultrasound evaluation, according to our protocol, allows us to identify two different saphenofemoral junction hemodynamic patterns that could predict varicose vein recurrence at mid-term. An optimal stump washing after inferior selective crossectomy, warranted by patency and large caliber saphenofemoral junction superior tributaries, seems to be the key point in preventing varicose vein recurrence in this context. However, large prospective studies regarding saphenofemoral junction modifications and varicose vein recurrence are needed to confirm these preliminary observations.

Endovenous laser ablation in patients with wide diameter of the proximal segment of the great saphenous vein: Comparison of methods

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 700-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
V Starodubtsev ◽  
M Lukyanenko ◽  
A Karpenko ◽  
P Ignatenko
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Chronic Venous Disease ◽  
Proximal Segment ◽  
Venous Disease ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Wide Diameter ◽  
Saphenous Veins

Objective To estimate the safety and efficacy of using the laser 1560 nm wavelength for treatment of chronic venous disease in patients with wide diameters of the proximal segment of the great saphenous vein. Methods In the study 88 patients with lower limb varicose veins were included. Maximum diameter of the great saphenous vein proximal segment varied from 15 to 34 mm (22 ± 2.3) in all patients. In the 1st group in 34 cases crossektomy and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) were performed. In the 2nd group in 30 cases EVLA regardless diameter of the great saphenous vein proximal segment was performed. In the 3rd group in 34 cases EVLA taking into account the diameter of the great saphenous vein proximal segment was performed. The laser 1560 nm wavelength was used. Linear endovenous energy density in the 1st and 2nd groups was 90 J/cm for the proximal segment and trunk of great saphenous vein. Linear endovenous energy density in the 3rd group was personalized on the size of the veins: 100 J/cm for diameter of great saphenous vein proximal segment 15–20 mm, 150 J/cm for diameter 20–30 mm, 90 J/cm for middle and distal segments of great saphenous vein. Results In the 1st group obliteration of the trunk of the great saphenous veins and accessory great saphenous veins in all cases without additional interventions was reached. In the 2nd group at four cases (13.3%) the second procedure EVLA was carried out, after which the obliteration of the trunk was achieved. In the 3rd group the obliteration of the trunk of great saphenous vein was achieved without additional interventions. Conclusion Our experience of using the laser 1560 nm wavelength for the treatment of the chronic venous disease in patients with wide diameter of the proximal segment of great saphenous vein shows the safety and efficacy of this technique. EVLA has to be personalized on the size of the segments of vein in patients with wide proximal segment of great saphenous vein.

scholarly journals A randomized prospective long-term (>1 year) clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation to 980 nm laser ablation of the great saphenous vein

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 415-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm Sydnor ◽  
John Mavropoulos ◽  
Natalia Slobodnik ◽  
Luke Wolfe ◽  
Brian Strife ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Radiofrequency Ablation ◽  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Venous Clinical Severity Score ◽  
Superficial Venous Insufficiency

Purpose To compare the short- and long-term (>1 year) efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (ClosureFAST™) versus endovenous laser ablation (980 nm diode laser) for the treatment of superficial venous insufficiency of the great saphenous vein. Materials and methods Two hundred patients with superficial venous insufficiency of the great saphenous vein were randomized to receive either radiofrequency ablation or endovenous laser ablation (and simultaneous adjunctive therapies for surface varicosities when appropriate). Post-treatment sonographic and clinical assessment was conducted at one week, six weeks, and six months for closure, complications, and patient satisfaction. Clinical assessment of each patient was conducted at one year and then at yearly intervals for patient satisfaction. Results Post-procedure pain ( p < 0.0001) and objective post-procedure bruising ( p = 0.0114) were significantly lower in the radiofrequency ablation group. Improvements in venous clinical severity score were noted through six months in both groups (endovenous laser ablation 6.6 to 1; radiofrequency ablation 6.2 to 1) with no significant difference in venous clinical severity score ( p = 0.4066) or measured adverse effects; 89 endovenous laser ablation and 87 radiofrequency patients were interviewed at least 12 months out with a mean long-term follow-up of 44 and 42 months ( p = 0.1096), respectively. There were four treatment failures in each group, and every case was correctable with further treatment. Overall, there were no significant differences with regard to patient satisfaction between radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation ( p = 0.3009). There were no cases of deep venous thrombosis in either group at any time during this study. Conclusions Radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation are highly effective and safe from both anatomic and clinical standpoints over a multi-year period and neither modality achieved superiority over the other.

SHORTTERM FOLLOW UP OF EVLA: COMPLICATIONS AND MANAGEMENTS, A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE OF BANGLADESH

2020 ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Vein ◽  
Varicose Veins ◽  
Large Population ◽  
Venous Disease ◽  
Ablation Therapy ◽  
Single Center Experience ◽  
Below The Knee ◽  
Pregnancy And Delivery

Dodd and Cockett defined varicose veins, saying “a varicose vein is one which has permanently lost its valvular efficiency.” [1] Varicose veins constitute a progressive disease, remission of the disease does not occur, except after pregnancy and delivery. [2] The first documented reference of varicose veins was found as illustrations on Ebers Papyrus dated 1550 B.C. in Athens. [3]Greek philosopher Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.) described the use of compressive bandages and was advisor of small punctures in varicose veins. First patient who underwent operation for his varicose vein appears to be Canus Marius, the Roman tyrant. Giovanni Rima (1777-1843) introduced mid thigh ligation of the saphenous vein. Ligation of the sapheno-femoral junction as it is practiced today was first described by John Homans in his paper in 1916. [2] The Mayo Brothers, postulating that there would be additional benefit in removing the saphenous vein, pursued excision of the GSV through an incision extending from the groin to below the knee. The final technologic leap was introduction of the intraluminal stripper by Babcock. [2] In the era of minimally invasive surgery, the first documented case of Endovenous Laser Ablasion was published in 1999 using 810 nm Diode Laser. Since then several wavelengths were introduced; 810, 940, 980, 1064, 1320, 1470 and newly introduced 1940 nm. [4, 5] It is generally agreed that varicose veins affect from 40 to 60% of women and 15 to 30% men. [6] During the 1930s to 1960s, several large studies reported the prevalence of varicose veins to roughly average 2% in the general population. [7] However, more recently, large population studies such as Edinburgh Vein Study demonstrated an age-adjusted prevalence of truncal varices of 40% in men and 32% in women. [8] Vein ablation is the most modern treatment option for superficial venous disease. Several endovenous modalities are getting popular for the treatment of varicose vein. Endovenous laser ablation therapy is the first endovenous procedure that had made the revolution in the treatment of varicose vein. [9] In Bangladesh, Laser ablation was first started at another center with 980 nm bare fiber and a good number of cases were done. We introduced ELVeSᴿ Radialᴿ fiber for the first time in the country using biolitecᴿ LEONARDOᴿ Mini 1470 nm during last week of March, 2018.

Endovenous heat-induced thrombosis after ablation with 1470 nm laser: Incidence, progression, and risk factors

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 325-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Sufian ◽  
A Arnez ◽  
N Labropoulos ◽  
S Lakhanpal
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Severity Scores ◽  
Class 1 ◽  
Vein Diameter ◽  
Saphenofemoral Junction

Objectives To evaluate the incidence of heat-induced thrombosis, its progression and risk factors that may contribute to its formation after endovenous laser ablation. Methods This was a prospective evaluation of all patients who had endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein, accessory saphenous vein, and small saphenous vein using 1470 nm wavelength laser, from March 2010 to September 2011. All patients who developed endovenous heat-induced thrombosis at the saphenofemoral junction or at the saphenopopliteal junction were included. Demographic data, history of venous thrombosis, body mass index, vein diameter, reflux time, catheter tip position, endovenous heat-induced thrombosis progression, number of phlebectomies, and venous clinical severity scores were analyzed. Duplex ultrasound was done in all patients preoperatively, and 2–3 days postoperatively. Results Endovenous laser ablation was performed in 2168 limbs. Fifty-seven percent had great saphenous vein, 13% accessory saphenous vein, and 30% small saphenous vein ablation. Endovenous heat-induced thrombosis was developed in 18 limbs (12 at saphenofemoral junction and six at saphenopopliteal junction) for an incidence of 0.9%. Eight were class 1 and 10 were > class 2. No pulmonary embolism was reported. The percentage of men with endovenous heat-induced thrombosis was higher compared to those without (39% vs. 24%, p = .14). The median age for endovenous heat-induced thrombosis patients was 59.6 compared to non-endovenous heat-induced thrombosis ( p = .021). Great saphenous vein/accessory saphenous vein diameter for endovenous heat-induced thrombosis patients was 8.0 mm versus 6.3 mm for non-endovenous heat-induced thrombosis patients ( p = .014), and for small saphenous vein it was 5.7 mm versus 4.5 mm ( p = .16). Multiple concomitant phlebectomies were performed in 55.6% of the endovenous heat-induced thrombosis patients compared to 37% in non-endovenous heat-induced thrombosis ( p = .001). All other parameters were similar between endovenous heat-induced thrombosis and non-endovenous heat-induced thrombosis group. Endovenous heat-induced thrombosis resolution occurred in 16 cases at 2–4 but two cases progressing from class 1 to 2, before resolution. The mean VCSS score for endovenous heat-induced thrombosis patients preoperatively was 5.6 and improved to 2.8 ( p = .003) at one month. Conclusion Risk factors associated with endovenous heat-induced thrombosis formation after endovenous laser ablation include: vein size, age, and multiple phlebectomies. Endovenous heat-induced thrombosis resolves in 2–4 weeks in most patients but it may worsen in few.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document