Radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein in an elderly patient with co-morbid disease : online article - case report

Introduction. Venous aneurysm (VA) is a rare condition that can be presented in both superficial and deep venous system. Secondary VAs as well as pseudoaneurysms are usually caused by external spontaneous or iatrogenic trauma. They are often misdiagnosed and inadequately treated. Complications include thrombosis, phlebitis, eventual pulmonary embolism and rupture. Case report. We presented a case of secondary VA of the great saphenous vein developed in a young addict following chronic intravenous drug application in the groin region. Aneurysm required urgent surgical treatment due to bleeding complication as it was previously misdiagnosed for hematoma (or abscess) and punctuated by a general surgeon. Complete resection of VA with successful preservation of continuity of the great saphenous vein was performed. Postoperative course was uneventful. Regular venous flow through the great saphenous vein was confirmed on control ultrasound examination. Conclusion. VAs are uncommon, among them secondary VA being extremely rare. In cases with a significant diameter or threatening complications surgical treatment is recommended.

Download Full-text

Case Report: Accessory Great Saphenous Vein

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development ◽

10.31142/ijtsrd18817 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol Volume-2 (Issue-6) ◽

pp. 1188-1190

Author(s):

Shobha. G ◽

Uma. B. Gopal ◽

Manu Krishnan. K ◽

Keyword(s):

Case Report ◽

Saphenous Vein ◽

Great Saphenous Vein

Download Full-text

Surgical resection for suppurative thrombophlebitis of the great saphenous vein after radiofrequency ablation

Journal of Vascular Surgery Cases and Innovative Techniques ◽

10.1016/j.jvscit.2019.06.005 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 5 (4) ◽

pp. 532-534

Author(s):

Zachary Grady ◽

Matthew Aizpuru ◽

Kevin X. Farley ◽

Jaime Benarroch-Gampel ◽

Robert S. Crawford

Keyword(s):

Radiofrequency Ablation ◽

Surgical Resection ◽

Saphenous Vein ◽

Great Saphenous Vein

Download Full-text

Saphenous vein diameter is a single risk factor for early recanalization after endothermal ablation of incompetent great saphenous vein

Vascular ◽

10.1177/1708538119837110 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 27 (5) ◽

pp. 537-541

Author(s):

Cemal Kemaloğlu

Keyword(s):

Risk Factor ◽

Radiofrequency Ablation ◽

Saphenous Vein ◽

Great Saphenous Vein ◽

Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽

The Third ◽

Single Risk Factor ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Vein Diameter ◽

Single Predictor

Background and aim The aim of this study was to compare endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) techniques for efficacy and side effects for great saphenous vein (GSV) ablation. Materials and methods Two hundred twenty-one patients and 287 extremities that underwent GSV ablation with EVLA and RFA methods were analysed retrospectively; 135 GSVs were treated with EVLA, 152 GSVs were treated with RFA. Physical examination and Ultrasound (US) records at the first week, first month and third month were evaluated. Recanalization, endothermal heat-induced thrombosis formation, presence of ecchymosis greater than 10 cm and GSV diameter parameters were statistically analyzed. Results In the RFA group, 96.7% of the GSVs that were ablated were occluded at the end of the third month. In the EVLA group, this rate was 92.6%. There was no statistically significant difference between success of ablation ( P = 0.118). In the RFA group, ecchymotic areas, that is larger than 10 cm diameter were observed in 16 extremities, whereas in the EVLA group, 66 of 135 (48.9%) limbs were found to have ecchymotic area larger than 10 cm ( P < 0.001). More recanalizations were observed in GSVs larger than 10 mm in diameter which was statistically significant ( P < 0.001). Conclusion Both EVLA and RFA methods are effective in treating GSV reflux. Compared to the EVLA, less ecchymosis occurs after RFA procedures. Regardless of the type of method used, the GSV diameter is a single predictor of recanalization.

Download Full-text

Radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein, comparing one versus two treatment cycles for the proximal vein segment

Phlebology The Journal of Venous Disease ◽

10.1177/0268355514556142 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 30 (10) ◽

pp. 724-728 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

S Sufian ◽

A Arnez ◽

N Labropoulos ◽

K Nguyen ◽

V Satwah ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Radiofrequency Ablation ◽

Treatment Group ◽

Saphenous Vein ◽

Great Saphenous Vein ◽

Demographic Data ◽

Duplex Ultrasound ◽

Clinical Severity ◽

Severity Scores ◽

Vein Segment ◽

Ceap Classification

Objective To evaluate the results of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the great saphenous vein (GSV) using one versus two 20 s energy cycle treatment in the proximal 7 cm segment of the GSV. Methods All patients who underwent RFA of the GSV from 1 May 2013 to 30 September 2013 in eight of our vein centers were included. Duplex ultrasound scans (DUSs) were performed prior to treatment on all patients and 2–3 days, and 1 month after procedure. Demographic data, GSV diameters, and other relevant data were recorded. Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomic, Pathologic (CEAP) classification and Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSSs) were determined prior to ablation and one month later. Patients who developed endovenous heat induced thrombosis (EHIT) were followed till resolution. Results A total of 205 patients had one cycle treatment (group A) and 204 had two cycle treatment (group B). The two groups were comparable in their demography, CEAP classification, and VCSS scores. The rate of failure of ablation and incidence of EHIT were also not significantly different. The incidence of complications was low, <5% in both groups and all were minor. Conclusion Two cycle treatment of the proximal GSV for vein ablation does not improve the success rate of vein closure in the short term, compared to one cycle treatment. It also does not increase the risks of DVT, EHIT, major bleeding, and other complications. However, we do not know at what diameter two cycles may be superior to one cycle.

Download Full-text

Comparison of cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of varicose veins

Phlebology The Journal of Venous Disease ◽

10.1177/0268355518794105 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 34 (4) ◽

pp. 278-283 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Gary K Yang ◽

Marina Parapini ◽

Joel Gagnon ◽

Jerry C Chen

Keyword(s):

Radiofrequency Ablation ◽

Saphenous Vein ◽

Great Saphenous Vein ◽

Varicose Veins ◽

Treatment Success ◽

Vancouver General Hospital ◽

Wound Complications ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Success Rates

Objective To review clinical outcomes of varicose vein patients treated with cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation at our institution. Methods A retrospective review of patients who underwent cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation during a three-year period. Patient records were reviewed to assess demographics, location and severity of disease, treatment details and outcome at short- and mid-term follow-ups. Outcome parameters included treatment success and complications. Results Between January 2014 and December 2016, 335 patients with 476 veins were treated with either cyanoacrylate embolization (n = 148) or radiofrequency ablation (n = 328) at the Vancouver General Hospital Vascular Surgery Vein Clinic. The average age of patients were 57 ± 1 years with the majority being female (78%) and an average BMI of 24.8 ± 0.5. CEAP classes were 2 (49%), 3 (26%), 4a (22%) and >4b (3%). Of the veins treated with cyanoacrylate embolization, the vein types were as follows: 76% were great saphenous vein, 16% were small saphenous vein, 5% were anterior accessory great saphenous vein and 1.4% were perforator veins. The vein types for radiofrequency ablation were 88%, 9%, 3% and 0%, respectively. The average amount of cyanoacrylate embolization delivered for great saphenous vein treatment was 1.8 ± 0.1 ml with a treatment length of 43 ± 1 cm. Subgroup comparison was done for great saphenous vein segments. Treatment success was 100% in cyanoacrylate embolization and 99% in radiofrequency ablation. Superficial phlebitis was the most common complication noted at mid-term follow-up in 5% of cyanoacrylate embolization and 16% of radiofrequency ablation treatments (P < 0.05). One patient in each group had asymptomatic proximal thrombus extension treated with anticoagulation for 2–3 weeks. Three superficial infections from glue clumps were noted in the cyanoacrylate embolization group requiring excision and drainage. Five patients in the radiofrequency ablation group had persistent numbness and one wound complications at the access site. Conclusion Cyanoacrylate embolization offers equivalent success rates with lower mid-term complication rates as radiofrequency ablation.

Download Full-text