泡沫硬化剂注射治疗下肢静脉曲张的临床研究

目的 探讨泡沫硬化疗法治疗下肢静脉曲张的临床治疗策略和方法.方法 在直视下对45例患者共计48条下肢(CEAP分级为2级)的曲张静脉进行注射泡沫硬化剂治疗.结果 48条下肢均注射成功,平均每条肢体应用14 ml泡沫硬化剂.4条肢体于治疗后1个月复诊时实施了第二次注射治疗.随访3个月以上,所有患者(包括第二次注射治疗者)下肢明显的曲张静脉消失,无严重并发症发生.结论 直视下对泡沫硬化剂注射治疗下肢静脉曲张简便易行且效果满意.     

导管引导下泡沫硬化剂疗法治疗大隐静脉曲张

目的 探讨导管引导下的泡沫硬化剂疗法治疗下肢静脉曲张的临床效果.方法 选择2008年4月至8月间有微创治疗意愿的30例(条)中重度下肢静脉曲张患者.其中男性11例,女性19例;年龄34-85岁,平均年龄52岁.病史2～30年,平均20年.对其进行导管引导下患肢大隐静脉主干内注射1%聚桂醇泡沫硬化剂,观察大隐静脉主干的闭合情况.结果 30条患肢均在导管引导下成功注射硬化剂,平均每条患肢应用6.2 ml泡沫硬化剂,27条(90%)大隐静脉主干治疗后即刻可见反流消失.术后早期大隐静脉走行轻微浅静脉炎5例(条),2周内自行缓解,无严重的并发症发生.平均随访3个月,27例患者下肢活动后酸胀、乏力感消失,下肢明显的曲张畸形静脉消失;27条患肢(90%)于治疗后2周、3个月后复诊血管超声时大隐静脉主干闭塞.4例(条)患者(15%)仅有小腿局限的轻度曲张.结论 导管引导的泡沫硬化剂疗法治疗下肢静脉曲张的大隐静脉主干闭合率较高,是微创治疗下肢静脉曲张有效的新方法.     

泡沫硬化剂治疗复发性下肢静脉曲张23例临床体会

目的探讨泡沫硬化剂治疗复发性下肢静脉曲张的临床疗效。方法选择我院2011年1月至2012年3月期间23例(26条患肢)复发性下肢静脉曲张的患者,其中男9例,平均年龄58.6岁;女14例,平均年龄53.3岁。静脉曲张复发病史1个月～6年,平均3.2年。对其行超声引导下患肢曲张静脉内注射1%聚桂醇泡沫硬化剂后弹力袜压迫,治疗后3 d、3个月超声检测曲张静脉闭合情况及有无深静脉血栓形成,3个月后不定期病房随访。结果 23例患者均在超声引导下成功行泡沫硬化剂治疗,20例(22条患肢)注射1次,3例(4条患肢)注射2次,每例患者每次平均应用5 ml泡沫硬化剂。末次注射结束后3 d观察曲张静脉均成功闭合。平均随访6个月,治疗后1周2例出现轻度血栓性浅静脉炎,2周内自行缓解,均无严重并发症发生。治疗后3个月3例(4条患肢)局部复发,复发率15.4%,再次局部泡沫硬化剂治疗后至今未复发。10例(12条患肢)注射部位皮肤出现轻度色素沉着,3个月后减轻,6个月至1年消退。所有患者临床症状得到不同程度的缓解。结论泡沫硬化剂治疗复发性下肢静脉曲张近期疗效确切且并发症少。     

泡沫硬化疗法治疗大隐静脉曲张34例报告

目的探讨新型泡沫硬化疗法对大隐静脉曲张的临床治疗效果。方法在超声引导下以新型泡沫硬化剂自2004年8月对34例病人共计36条大隐静脉曲张肢体进行注射硬化治疗。结果36条肢体均在超声引导下成功注射，平均每条肢体应用6．8mL泡沫硬化剂。有16．7％（6／36）大隐静脉于治疗后1个月复诊时实施了第二次注射治疗。平均随访6个月，全部病人（包括第二次注射治疗者）下肢活动后酸胀、乏力感消失，下肢明显的曲张畸形静脉消失；有22％（8／36）仅有小腿局限的轻度曲张。无严重的并发症，病人满意率100％。术后3个月复查血管超声，78％（28／36）大隐静脉主于闭塞或直径〈3mm。结论新型泡沫硬化剂注射疗法是一种简单有效的下肢静脉曲张治疗方法。     

彩超引导下聚桂醇泡沫硬化剂注射治疗下肢静脉曲张

目的探讨彩超引导下泡沫硬化剂注射治疗下肢静脉曲张的临床效果。方法 2014年10~12月,对下肢静脉曲张26例(30条肢体),包括C2(浅静脉曲张)20条,C3(静脉性水肿)8条,C4(皮肤营养性改变)2条,门诊在彩超引导下穿刺大隐静脉主干,注射聚桂醇,一次封闭大隐静脉主干及曲张静脉,术后2周、1个月、3个月彩超复查大隐静脉主干闭塞情况,并除外深静脉血栓形成。结果 26例均成功进行泡沫硬化剂注射治疗。2周随访,3例(3条肢体)大隐静脉主干未完全封闭,再次泡沫硬化剂注射治疗;3例(3条肢体)存在残余曲张静脉,再次局部泡沫硬化剂注射治疗。局部轻微静脉炎症状5例,对症处理,1~2周缓解。3个月随访,26例(30条肢体)曲张静脉均闭合良好,未出现深静脉血栓、肺栓塞以及过敏性休克等严重并发症。结论泡沫硬化剂注射治疗下肢静脉曲张微创、安全、有效。     

射频消融术和微波消融术联合泡沫硬化剂注射治疗下肢静脉曲张短期临床效果对比

目的 对比射频消融术(RFA)和微波消融术(EMA)分别联合泡沫硬化剂注射治疗下肢静脉曲张的短期临床效果.方法 收集2020年8月至2021年4月成都中医药大学附属医院收治的168例(215条患肢)行下肢静脉曲张手术患者的临床资料,根据手术方式不同将患者分为RFA组[(n=83,101条患肢),采用RFA联合泡沫硬化剂...     

超声监测下泡沫硬化剂治疗中度以上下肢静脉曲张疗效分析

目的 评价超声监测下泡沫硬化剂对中度以上下肢静脉曲张的治疗效果.方法 对32例临床分级C4～C6的患者实施大隐静脉高位结扎+腔镜下小腿交通静脉结扎+超声监视下大隐静脉主干及小腿曲张静脉泡沫硬化剂注射,通过随访评估症状的改善程度并用血管彩色多普勒超声对静脉闭塞情况进行观察.结果 32例患者共32条肢体(C4～C6)接受治疗.平均结扎小腿交通静脉3.2(1～5)条,每条肢体平均使用泡沫硬化剂27.5 ml.1例术后出现轻度胸闷但CT排除肺栓塞,4例曲张静脉附近呈现明显的炎性反应,3例局部存留迂曲静脉团块但超声多普勒检查未见血流信号,无脑缺血等严重并发症.术后平均随访4.8(1～10)个月,所有患肢术后静脉曲张消失,临床症状明显缓解.C5期9条患肢的溃疡均于术后3个月内愈合.结论 泡沫硬化剂注射可有效治疗中度以上下肢静脉曲张,联合腔镜下交通静脉结扎及大隐静脉高位结扎可以增加治疗的安全性.     

泡沫硬化剂治疗下肢浅静脉曲张38例报告

目的 探讨泡沫硬化剂治疗下肢浅静脉曲张中的应用方法及其疗效.方法 38例患者(共54条患肢)均在造影指导下进行手术.剥脱大隐静脉主干,然后对小腿严重屈曲成团的静脉进行点状剥脱,最后对明显的曲张浅静脉进行泡沫硬化剂治疗.术中再次静脉造影,对残留的曲张静脉再次注入泡沫硬化剂,直至完全闭合.结果 38例患者(54条患肢)第一次泡沫硬化剂注入后进行静脉造影,发现77.8％(42/54)患肢存在小腿深部有残留曲张静脉,再次进行泡沫硬化剂治疗后绝大部分曲张静脉闭合.术后第5天静脉造影复查时发现有8例皮下深层有曲张静脉团,再次注入泡沫硬化剂后曲张静脉闭合.无一例发生下肢深静脉血栓形成和肺栓塞.结论 改进的应用泡沫硬化剂方法闭合曲张静脉可以安全、有效、微创及彻底治疗大隐静脉曲张,并取得较好的中期疗效.     

聚桂醇注射联合大隐静脉抽剥缝扎治疗下肢静脉曲张

目的:探讨国产聚桂醇注射联合大隐静脉抽剥缝扎治疗下肢静脉曲张的临床效果.方法:选择我院从2010年4月至2011年8月应用大隐静脉主干抽剥联合聚桂醇泡沫硬化剂治疗下肢静脉曲张47条肢体,观察大隐静脉曲张的治疗效果.结果:47条肢体中42条肢体治疗2周后曲张静脉完全闭塞;5条肢体残留少许曲张静脉,再次注射后闭塞;6个月后复诊均无明显复发.结论:国产聚桂醇泡沫硬化剂注射联合大隐静脉抽剥缝扎治疗下肢静脉曲张的临床效果满意,是微创治疗下肢静脉曲张的新方法.     

彩超引导下聚桂醇泡沫硬化剂注射治疗下肢静脉曲张北大核心CSCD

目的探讨彩超引导下泡沫硬化剂注射治疗下肢静脉曲张的临床效果。方法 2014年10~12月,对下肢静脉曲张26例（30条肢体）,包括C2（浅静脉曲张）20条,C3（静脉性水肿）8条,C4（皮肤营养性改变）2条,门诊在彩超引导下穿刺大隐静脉主干,注射聚桂醇,一次封闭大隐静脉主干及曲张静脉,术后2周、1个月、3个月彩超复查大隐静脉主干闭塞情况,并除外深静脉血栓形成。结果 26例均成功进行泡沫硬化剂注射治疗。2周随访,3例（3条肢体）大隐静脉主干未完全封闭,再次泡沫硬化剂注射治疗;3例（3条肢体）存在残余曲张静脉,再次局部泡沫硬化剂注射治疗。局部轻微静脉炎症状5例,对症处理,1~2周缓解。3个月随访,26例（30条肢体）曲张静脉均闭合良好,未出现深静脉血栓、肺栓塞以及过敏性休克等严重并发症。结论泡沫硬化剂注射治疗下肢静脉曲张微创、安全、有效。     

DSA引导泡沫硬化治疗下肢静脉曲张中长期效果

目的 观察DSA引导泡沫硬化治疗下肢静脉曲张的效果及对患者生活质量的影响。方法 对573例（744肢）下肢静脉曲张患者行泡沫硬化治疗;随访4年,统计治疗前和治疗后1、2、3、4年健康调查12条简表（SF-12）评分及静脉疾病临床严重程度评分（VCSS）,4年后填写下肢症状改善情况问卷,记录期望值达到情况及治疗满意度。结果 所有患肢治疗均成功,平均泡沫硬化剂用量为每肢（21.62±10.83）ml;治疗中及治疗后均未见深静脉血栓、肺栓塞等严重并发症。治疗后1、2、3、4年SF-12中躯体健康成分（PCS）总分和精神健康成分（MCS）总分均较术前增加（P均<0.05）,VCSS均较术前降低（P均<0.01）。治疗后4年患者对患肢外观、疼痛、瘙痒、肿胀及沉重感改善超过预期+达到预期者分别占100%（91/91）、100%（36/36）、93.55%（29/31）、88.46%（23/26）及91.38%（53/58）;患者满意度100%（72/72）。结论 DSA引导泡沫硬化治疗下肢静脉曲张中长期疗效较好,并可改善患者生活质量。     

Severe Chronic Venous Insufficiency Treated by Foamed Sclerosant

Our objective was to chronicle our experience in using sclerosant foam to treat severe chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). Forty-four patients with 60 limbs severely affected by severe CVI were entered into the study. They had lipodermatosclerosis, CEAP 4 (seven limbs); atrophie blanche or scars of healed venous ulcerations, CEAP 5 (18 limbs); and frank, open venous ulcers, CEAP 6 (35 limbs). Patients and limbs were collected into three groups. In group I, all limbs were treated with compression without intervention. Group II consisted of crossover patients who failed compression treatment. Group III consisted of patients treated promptly with sclerosant foam therapy without a waiting period of compression. A standing Doppler duplex reflux examination was done in all cases. Compression was by Unna boot or long stretch elastic bandaging. Foam was generated from Polidocanol 1%, 2%, or 3% by the two-syringe technique and administered under ultrasound guidance. Posttreatment compression was used for 14 days. In addition to clinical and ultrasound evaluation at 2, 7, 14, and 30 days, venous severity scoring was noted at entry and discharge. In group I, 12 patients were discharged from care within 6 weeks of initiating compression. All eight of the class 6 limbs had healed. Group II consisted of four CEAP class 5 limbs and eight class 6 limbs that had failed to heal with compression. Five of eight venous ulcers healed within 2 weeks, two more healed by 4 weeks, and one required 6 weeks to heal. In group III, 7 of 11 venous ulcers healed within 2 weeks and four more within 4 weeks. Venous severity scores reflected the success of treatment, with the greatest change occurring in group III and the least in group I. Limbs treated with foam had a statistically better outcome than those without (p = 0.041). One patient failed foam sclerotherapy, another had pulmonary emboli 4 months after foam treatment, and a single medial gastrocnemius thrombus was discovered 24 hr after treatment. Treatment of severe CVI with compression and foam sclerotherapy causes more rapid resolution of the venous insufficiency complications and does so without an increase in morbidity.     

Comparative Study of Duplex-Guided Foam Sclerotherapy and Duplex-Guided Liquid Sclerotherapy for the Treatment of Superficial Venous Insufficiency

PURPOSE: To compare the preliminary results of hemodynamic changes between duplex-guided foam sclerotherapy and duplex-guided liquid sclerotherapy. METHODS: Seventy Seven limbs in 77 patients with isolated greater saphenous vein incompetence were treated with duplex-guided sclerotherapy. Thirty Seven limbs were treated with duplex-guided foam sclerotherapy and the remaining 40 limbs were treated with duplex-guided liquid sclerotherapy. Pretreatment exam was performed using a color duplex scanner and air plethysmography. The sclerosing foam was produced by Tessari's method using 1% and 3% polidocanol. The varicose vein was injected with 2 mL of 1% polidocanol or 1% polidocanol foam, and then 1 mL of 3% polidocanol or 3% polidocanol foam was injected into the greater saphenous vein under duplex guidance. Venous obstruction and recanalization were screened by serial posttreatment duplex examination, and posttreatment air plethysmography analysis was performed 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the sclerotherapy. RESULTS: Duplex scanning demonstrated complete occlusion in the greater saphenous vein for duplex-guided foam sclerotherapy in 25 limbs (67.6%), which was a significantly higher proportion than for the duplex-guided liquid sclerotherapy (7 limbs, 17.5%, p<0.0001). Recurrent varicose veins were found in 3 patient (8.1%) in the duplex-guided foam sclerotherapy group and 10 (25%) in the duplex-guided liquid sclerotherapy group at 1-year (p=0.048). In duplex-guided foam sclerotherapy, venous filling index values remained normal during the subsequent follow-up examinations, whereas in duplex-guided liquid sclerotherapy, venous filling index began to increase, and there was a significant difference at 6 months between duplex-guided foam sclerotherapy and the duplex-guided liquid sclerotherapy (p<0.0005). At 9 months, there was a significant difference in the residual venous fraction between the two groups, and the residual venous fraction value continued to improve in duplex-guided foam sclerotherapy (p=0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Duplex-guided foam sclerotherapy could have greater promise compared to duplex-guided liquid sclerotherapy in the treatment of superficial venous insufficiency.     

冷光源引导下泡沫硬化剂注射小腿曲张浅静脉在下肢静脉溃疡治疗中的应用探讨

目的探讨冷光源引导下泡沫硬化剂注射小腿曲张浅静脉联合腔镜深筋膜下交通支静脉离断术(SEPS)及大隐静脉高位结扎抽剥术治疗下肢交通静脉功能不全所致的静脉溃疡中的作用效果。 方法选取2012年6月至2013年5月就诊的42例(46条患肢)小腿交通静脉功能不全合并浅静脉曲张的静脉溃疡患者,行SEPS术及大隐静脉高位结扎抽剥术,并在SEPS术的冷光源引导下行小腿曲张静脉泡沫硬化剂注射术。 结果共注射263条曲张浅表静脉。随访期间所有患者静脉溃疡均愈合。9例患者的9条下肢(9/46,19.57%)在术后4周内出现局部疼痛,口服止疼药可缓解。22例患者的24条下肢(24/46,52.17%)共46条静脉(46/263,17.49%)在术后1 ~ 2周出现沿治疗曲张静脉行程的黄褐色色素沉着,于3 ~ 6个月内自行消失。3例患者3条下肢(3/46,6.52%)共11条静脉(11/263, 4.18%)在治疗后1周出现沿曲张静脉分布的红、热、痛和压痛,诊断为浅表性静脉炎,外用多磺酸黏多糖乳膏后缓解。经过注射的263条曲张静脉中,245条(245/263,93.16%)达到治疗成功标准,18条(18/263,6.84%)达到部分成功标准,无一条静脉未成功注射。 结论冷光源引导下的小腿曲张静脉泡沫硬化剂注射联合SEPS术及大隐静脉高位结扎抽剥术是良好的治疗交通静脉功能不全所致静脉溃疡的方法,其长期作用效果有待进一步观察。     

Venous disorders: treatment with sclerosant foam

AIM: Treatment of venous insufficiency has been revolutionized by introduction of less invasive endovenous procedures. Foam sclerotherapy competes with these for truly minimal less invasive care. The idea of using air and drug in combination is quite old. Orbach described an air block technique using froth in 1944 and in 1993 Cabrera proposed use of a true foam of sodium tetradecyl sulfate or polidocanol to treat varicose veins. When Tessari presented a three-way tap technique in 2000, very good microfoam could be made at a very low cost. Foam can be used in classical sclerotherapy but it is the new indications that excite interest. This report documents experience in treating severe chronic venous insufficiency (CVI), venous angiomata and varicose veins using foam sclerotherapy. METHODS: This report describes initial experience in treating 332 patients: 261 patients with varicose veins, 56 patients (77 limbs) with severe CVI, 6 patients with venous angiomata and 9 patients with Klippel-Trenaunay (KT) syndrome. Patients with telangiectasias were also treated but are not a part of this report. A compounding pharmacy supplied the 1-3% polidocanol that was prescribed for each patient according to guidelines on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website. Foam was produced by the Tessari technique. Ultrasound guidance was used. Venous access was obtained percutaneously through varices for saphenous vein and variceal closure and through specific targeted veins for treatment of CVI, angiomata and KT syndrome. Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) surveillance was done at 1, 7, 30, and 60 days. Specific perforating vein injection was done only occasionally. Foam volumes varied from 1 to 16 mL for each treatment. RESULTS: Obliteration of varicose and saphenous veins was entirely satisfactory (2.89 treatments/limb). There was no disability down time, no need for analgesics or sedation. Trapped thrombus in large varices required evacuation and caused local pain and cutaneous staining. Treatment goals but not cure were achieved in limbs with angiomata and KT syndrome. Treatment of CVI resulted in rapid, 2-6 weeks, ulcer healing, relief of painful lipodermatosclerosis and dermatitis and some decrease in skin hyperpigmentation. There was one failure in 77 limbs treated for CVI and one case of cutaneous necrosis in one limb treated for CVI and another in a limb treated for angiomata. Other adverse events (5.4%) lasting 3 to 20 min included dry cough (4), occular migraine (2), true migraine (2), other visual disturbances (3), chest tightness (2), panic attack (2), paresthesias (2) myoclonus (1) and cutaneous necrosis (2). DVT (1.8%) was limited to gastrocnemius veins (3 cases) and posterior tibial veins (3 veins). No pulmonary emboli or lung complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of a variety of venous disorders can be accomplished using foam sclerotherapy with results comparable to surgery and with an acceptably low rate of adverse events. These results, however, must be confirmed by larger experience in other institutions.     

聚桂醇泡沫硬化治疗下肢静脉曲张562例分析

目的探讨无超声引导下聚桂醇泡沫硬化治疗下肢静脉曲张的临床效果。方法 2009年10月～2011年4月对562例下肢曲张静脉穿刺进行聚桂醇泡沫硬化注射治疗,硬化剂泡沫使用20 ml注射器抽取10 ml空气注入含10 ml聚桂醇的安瓿瓶反复抽吸形成,再将10 ml含泡沫硬化剂的注射器与6号头皮针相连,硬化治疗下肢静脉曲张562例共613条患肢。结果 1周后复查曲张静脉触诊均变成硬条索状,未有触及软的曲张静脉,3个月后患者未诉有明显曲张静为治愈,1个疗程聚桂醇泡沫硬化治疗后治愈率98.2%（602/613）,2个疗程治疗后治愈率100%。并发症发生率12.3%（69/562）,其中干咳为主要并发症,占10.1%（57/562）。结论无超声引导聚桂醇泡沫硬化治疗下肢静脉曲张操作简单、有效、微创、安全。     

大隐静脉腔内激光消融联合泡沫硬化治疗静脉曲张性溃疡

目的观察腔内激光消融(EVLA)大隐静脉联合泡沫硬化治疗下肢静脉曲张性溃疡(VULE)的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析接受EVLA联合泡沫硬化治疗的19例VULE患者(20条患肢)的资料,并观察治疗效果。结果EVLA联合泡沫硬化治疗19例20条患肢均获成功,溃疡长径术前[(2.30±1.61)cm],术后2周明显缩小到(0.90±0.32)cm(t=10.53,P0.01),溃疡愈合时间为7天~3个月,无复发病例。结论大隐静脉EVLA联合泡沫硬化治疗VULE临床疗效好。     

限制性内翻剥脱联合TriVex旋切及泡沫硬化剂治疗下肢静脉曲张（附132例报告）

目的 探讨限制性内翻剥脱联合TriVex旋切及泡沫硬化剂治疗下肢静脉曲张的手术方法及技巧.方法 2010年2月~2012年2月,应用该方法治疗132例下肢静脉曲张,临床病因病理生理解剖分类系统（CEAP）分级为C2~5 Ep/As/Pr的患者.内翻剥脱大隐静脉主干至膝下水平,小腿曲张静脉团结合透光旋切（transilluminated powered phlebectomy,TIPP）及泡沫硬化剂治疗（foam sclerotherapy）.观察术后瘀斑、隐神经缺失、症状改善情况及术后复发率.结果 所有患者术后下肢静脉曲张消失,临床症状缓解,无严重并发症.术后1个月随访,6.1%（8/132）有隐神经缺失症状.术后1年随访,1.7%（2/117）有隐神经缺失症状.无复发病例.结论 限制性内翻剥脱联合TriVex旋切及泡沫硬化剂治疗下肢静脉曲张简单,微创,有效.     

超声引导下泡沫硬化治疗四肢血管瘤

目的探讨超声引导下注射泡沫硬化剂治疗四肢血管瘤的疗效。方法收集经超声确诊的四肢血管瘤患者30例,于超声引导下向血管瘤腔内注射聚桂醇泡沫硬化剂,随访8个月,观察治疗后血管瘤体积变化和临床症状改善情况,评价疗效,观察治疗相关并发症。结果对13例进行1次治疗、12例进行2次治疗、3例进行3次治疗、2例进行4次治疗;血管瘤体积缩小≥60%19例、缩小30%~59%7例、缩小1%~29%2例、无明显变化2例,临床症状消失14例、明显好转11例,症状无明显变化5例;25例治疗有效,有效率为83.33%(25/30)。所有患者均未发生严重并发症。结论超声引导下聚桂醇泡沫硬化剂治疗四肢血管瘤费用低廉、安全、有效,值得临床推广与应用。     

Prospective randomised comparative study of visual foam sclerotherapy alone or in combination with ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for treatment of superficial venous insufficiency: preliminary report

ObjectiveThe aim of the study is to compare ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS: injection of foam sclerosant under ultrasound guidance) of the great saphenous vein (GSV) combined with visual foam sclerotherapy (VFS: injection of foam sclerosant under visual control) for varicose tributary veins and VFS alone in the treatment of GSV reflux.Design and methodsA total of 133 limbs in 97 patients with GSV reflux were randomised to receive either VFS alone or VFS combined with UGFS. In both groups, 1% polidocanol foam was used. Assessments included duplex ultrasonography, evaluation of Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSS) and CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, and pathophysiologic) scores. Ultrasonographic inspection of the foam in the GSV was carried out during 5 min before compression was applied. The primary ‘end’ point of the study was obliteration of the GSV at 6 months.ResultsA total of 51 limbs in 48 patients were treated with UGFS + VFS and the remaining 52 limbs in 49 patients were treated with VFS alone. There were no significant inter-group differences in patient age, male: female ratio, height, weight, body mass index, CEAP clinical scores or VCSS. The GSV diameter was 6.0 ± 1.7 mm (median ± interquartile range) in the UGFS + VFS group and 5.7 ± 1.6 mm in the VFS group (p = 0.419). The mean injected volume of foam for varicose tributary veins was 4 ± 2 ml in the UGFS + VFS group and 6 ± 2 ml in the VFS group, a significantly higher amount of foam being used in the latter (p < 0.001). However, the mean total amount of foam was greater in limbs treated with UFGS + VFS than in those treated with VFS alone (p = 0.017). Ultrasonographic inspection revealed complete vasospasm of the GSV in 37 (72.5%) limbs in the UGFS + VFS group and 29 (55.8%) in the VFS group during sclerotherapy (p = 0.097). At 6-month follow-up, complete occlusion was found in 23 limbs (45.1%) treated with UGFS + VFS and in 22 limbs (42.3%) treated with VFS. The difference between the two groups was not significant (p = 0.775). Reflux was absent in 30 limbs (58.8%) treated with UGFS + VFS and in 37 (71.2%) treated with VFS (p = 0.190). There was no inter-group difference in post-treatment VCSS (p = 0.223).ConclusionsThese results show that UGFS + VFS and VFS are equally effective for the treatment of GSV reflux, despite the lower volume of foam used for VFS alone.