氰基丙烯酸酯胶腔内常温闭合与射频腔内热闭合治疗大隐静脉功能不全的随机对照研究

目的评价氰基丙烯酸酯胶(n-butyl cyanoacrylate, NBCA)治疗大隐静脉功能不全的安全性和有效性。方法将60例大隐静脉功能不全患者(60条肢体)随机分为两组, 每组30例(30条肢体), A组利用NBCA对大隐静脉实施腔内闭合, B组行大隐静脉射频闭合(radiofrequency ablation, RFA)。观察术后效果、并发症的情况, 主要终点为术后3个月时大隐静脉主干闭合率。结果术后即刻及术后3个月两组患者的大隐静脉主干闭合率均为100%。两组患者的静脉临床严重程度评分(venous clinical severity score, VCSS)及阿伯丁静脉曲张问卷(Aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire, AVVQ)在术后3个月时较术前均有明显改善, 差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。在术后并发症方面, NBCA组出现硬结3例、疼痛及皮肤红肿各1例, 未出现瘀斑及麻木。RFA组出现麻木1例、皮肤红肿2例、硬结3例、瘀斑及疼痛各4例。NBCA组在瘀斑及总并发症发生率上优于RFA组(P<0.05)。术后两组患者均未观...     

射频消融术与大隐静脉高位结扎剥脱术治疗下肢静脉曲张的疗效比较

背景与目的 大隐静脉高位结扎剥脱术（HSL）是治疗下肢静脉曲张的经典术式,但存在创伤较大、恢复时间较长、切口瘢痕不美观等缺点。随着医疗技术的进步,以腔内热消融治疗为代表的微创治疗技术蓬勃发展。本研究旨在对比射频消融术（RFA）与传统HSL治疗下肢静脉曲张的临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析2021年5月—2022年6月期间因原发性下肢静脉曲张于首都医科大学附属北京安贞医院血管外科行手术治疗的272例患者（298条肢体）的临床与随访资料,其中96例（100条肢体）行RFA治疗（RFA组）,176例（198条肢体）行HSL治疗（HSL组）。比较两组患者的术前临床特征、手术情况、并发症情况、临床表现-病因学-解剖学-病理生理学（CEAP）分级、静脉临床严重程度评分（VCSS）和慢性静脉功能不全问卷-14问版（CIVIQ-14）评分的变化情况。结果 两组技术成功率均为100%,术后3 d复查超声提示大隐静脉主干缺如/闭合率为100%。共完成随访265例（290条肢体）,平均随访时间（13.2±3.8）个月,随访期间超声提示大隐静脉主干缺如/闭合率为100%。两组患者的基本临床特征无明显差异（均P>0.05）;与HSL组比较,RFA组术中出血量（21.3 mL vs. 46.8 mL）、术后第1天疼痛评分（3.1 vs. 3.3）、总并发症发生率（25.5% vs. 38.0%）及皮肤感觉异常发生率（5.1% vs. 24.0%）均明显降低（均P<0.05）,RFA组的深静脉血栓形成发生率升高（5.1% vs. 0,P<0.05）;术后所有患者CEAP分级均较术前降级,RFA组81.7%的患肢降级为C0~C1级,HSL组83.9%的患肢降级为C0~C1级;所有患者的VCSS和CIVIQ-14评分均较术前有所改善,且HSL组的VCSS评分改善程度大于RFA组（均P<0.05）。结论 RFA短期疗效与HSL相当,相对于HSL而言,创伤更小、疼痛感更轻、并发症发生率更低,是一种下肢静脉曲张的有效治疗方案。     

不同微创手术方法治疗大隐静脉曲张近期疗效的比较

目的 比较腔内射频消融术（RFA）、腔内激光消融术（EVLA）、腔内微波消融术（EMA）和Havst导管剥脱术治疗大隐静脉曲张的近期疗效。方法 收集2019年1月至2020年11月南阳市中心医院收治的423例大隐静脉曲张患者的临床资料,根据手术方式的不同将其分为RFA组（n=132）、EVLA组（n=98）、EMA组（n=106）、Havst组（n=87）,比较4组患者的临床指标、疼痛程度、生活质量评分。结果 4组患者术后1个月大隐静脉再通率、并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。4组患者手术时间、恢复正常工作时间比较,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）,其中,Havst组患者手术时间、恢复正常工作时间均较长。术后第1～7天,4组患者的视觉模拟评分法（VAS）评分比较,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）,其中,RFA组VAS评分较低。术前、术后6个月,4组患者阿伯丁静脉曲张问卷（AVVQ）评分比较,差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）;术后6个月,4组患者AVVQ评分均明显低于本组术前,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。术后6个月,4组患者...     

静脉剥脱导管大隐静脉主干剥脱术与腔内微波消融术治疗大隐静脉曲张的临床疗效

目的 探讨静脉剥脱导管大隐静脉主干剥脱术与腔内微波消融术治疗大隐静脉曲张患者的疗效及安全性.方法 选取河北医科大学第一医院2021年1—6月收治的80例大隐静脉曲张患者,根据治疗方法不同分将患者分为观察组与对照组,每组40例,对照组患者实施静脉剥脱导管大隐静脉主干剥脱术,观察组患者实施微波大隐静脉主干消融闭合术.观察两...     

CHIVA与闭合治疗非隐来源下肢静脉曲张的疗效比较

背景与目的：非隐反流来源下肢静脉曲张血流动力学类型复杂,传统隐静脉主干闭合或抽剥可能遗漏反流静脉造成高复发率,目前常用治疗方法以射频消融术（RFA）、激光及硬化剂闭合为主,但未形成共识。本研究旨在探讨对比血流动力学纠正术（CHIVA）和RFA联合超声引导泡沫硬化剂（UGFS）闭合治疗非隐来源下肢静脉曲张的安全性和有效性。方法：选取2019年7月—2021年12月中南大学湘雅三医院连续收治并定期随访的非隐反流来源下肢静脉曲张患者共95例。其中41例行CHIVA治疗（CHIVA组）,54例行RFA联合UGFS闭合（闭合组）。收集患者数据包括人口特征、反流静脉类型、分流通路类型、围术期情况、术后疗效、并发症、静脉临床严重程度评分（VCSS）。结果：CHIVA组平均手术时间明显少于闭合组（61.36 min vs. 78.15 min,P=0.000 5）、平均术中出血量明显少于闭合组（4.07 mL vs. 8.52 mL,P<0.000 1）、术中切口个数明显少于闭合组（1.58个vs. 3.65个,P<0.000 1）;两组平均住院时间无明显差异（P>0.05）。CHI...     

氰基丙烯酸酯栓塞术联合泡沫硬化剂治疗下肢静脉曲张的临床疗效

目的 探讨氰基丙烯酸酯栓塞术(CAE)联合泡沫硬化剂治疗下肢静脉曲张的临床疗效.方法 收集2020年9月至2021年3月甘肃省人民医院收治40例下肢静脉曲张的患者临床资料.根据治疗方式不同分为射频消融术组(RFA组,n=25)和CAE组(n=15).比较两组患者主要观察指标(术后1、3个月大隐静脉主干的闭合率);次要观...     

对比腔内微波消融与大隐静脉高位结扎及剥脱术治疗下肢静脉曲张效果

目的 对比分析腔内微波消融（EMA）与大隐静脉高位结扎及剥脱术（简称传统剥脱术）治疗下肢静脉曲张的效果。方法 回顾性分析94例单侧下肢静脉曲张患者,其中45例接受超声引导下EMA治疗（EMA组）、49例接受传统剥脱术（传统组）;记录并比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、手术切口数量、住院时间及术后并发症,并于术后6及12个月行临床严重程度评分（VCSS）和阿伯丁静脉曲张问卷（AVVQ）评分以评估疗效。结果 94例均治疗成功。EMA组手术时间及住院时间较传统组短,术中失血量及切口数量均少于传统组（P均<0.05）。组间术后并发症皮下淤血、皮下血肿及皮肤灼伤发生率差异均有统计学意义（P均<0.05）,局部感觉异常及切口感染发生率差异均无统计学意义（P均>0.05）。术前及术后组间VCSS、AVVQ评分差异均无统计学意义（P均>0.05）。术后6及12个月,2组VCSS及AVVQ评分均较术前降低（P均<0.05）。结论 EMA与传统剥脱术治疗下肢静脉曲张效果相当,前者安全性更高。     

腔内微波消融术治疗大隐静脉曲张两种术式的对照研究

目的:探讨大隐静脉曲张腔内微波消融术时,大隐静脉主干高位结扎和不结扎对疗效的影响。方法:采用前瞻性随机对照研究,2018年3月至2019年1月,按照纳入和排除标准共纳入236例单侧下肢浅静脉曲张患者,按照随机数字表法分为观察组（122例）和对照组（114例）。观察组采用大隐静脉主干单纯腔内微波消融闭合术,未高位结扎大隐...     

射频消融联合经皮椎体成形术治疗脊柱转移瘤

目的探讨射频消融(RFA)联合经皮椎体成形术(PVP)治疗脊柱转移瘤的临床疗效。方法将62例脊柱转移瘤患者按治疗方法不同分为对照组(行单纯PVP治疗,30例)和观察组(行RFA联合PVP治疗,32例)。比较两组疼痛VAS评分、ODI、KPS评分、骨水泥渗漏率。结果患者均获得随访,时间3~12个月。两组术后各时间点VAS评分、ODI、KPS评分均明显优于术前(P<0.05);术后7 d及1、3个月VAS评分及ODI观察组均明显低于对照组(P<0.05);骨水泥渗漏率观察组明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论RFA联合PVP较单纯PVP治疗脊柱转移瘤能更有效地缓解患者疼痛、减轻其功能障碍并降低骨水泥的渗漏率。     

腔内微波与传统手术治疗原发性下肢静脉曲张的临床对照研究

目的：比较腔内微波闭合术（EMA）与传统剥脱术治疗原发性下肢静脉曲张的疗效。方法：回顾性分析170例原发性下肢静脉曲张患者资料,其中110例行大隐静脉高位结扎加EMA治疗（EMA组）,60例采用传统手术方法治疗（传统组）,比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后下床活动时间、术后住院天数、手术并发症、术后疗效等指标。结果：EMA组手术时间、术中出血量、术后开始下床活动时间、术后住院天数、术后并发症（皮肤灼伤、皮下淤血、切口愈合不良、局部感觉异常）均低于传统手术治疗组,差异有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。术后深静脉血栓发生率、术后疗效（局部复发、色素沉着）两组患者比较差异无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。结论：高位结扎联合EMA治疗原发性大隐静脉曲张有效地结合了传统手术和微波治疗的优点,兼有微创、安全、有效的特点。

     

日间手术模式下腔内射频消融术与静脉剥脱导管主干剥脱术治疗大隐静脉曲张疗效比较

目的 比较日间手术模式下大隐静脉腔内射频消融术与静脉剥脱导管主干剥脱治疗大隐静脉曲张的安全性及有效性.方法 收集2020年2月至2021年1月大连市金州区第一人民医院收治的84例行日间手术的大隐静脉曲张患者的临床资料,根据手术方式的不同将患者分为射频组(n=44,采用大隐静脉主干射频消融术+小腿浅表静脉泡沫硬化+部分小...     

静脉内射频消融术与激光消融术治疗大隐静脉曲张的比较

目的 比较静脉内射频消融术和激光消融术治疗大隐静脉曲张的安全性和有效性.方法 回顾性分析2018年4～12月接受静脉内射频和激光消融术治疗的80例大隐静脉曲张患者临床资料,其中射频组39例,激光组41例.比较两种方法的手术并发症发生率、术后疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、静脉临床...     

Endovenous laser therapy and radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein: analysis of early efficacy and complications

BACKGROUND: Endovenous laser therapy (EVLT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are new, minimally invasive percutaneous endovenous techniques for ablation of the incompetent great saphenous vein (GSV). We have performed both procedures at the Mayo Clinic during two different consecutive periods. At the time of this report, no single-institution report has compared RFA with EVLT in the management of saphenous reflux. To evaluate early results, we reviewed saphenous closure rates and complications of both procedures. METHODS: Between June 1, 2001, and June 25, 2004, endovenous GSV ablation was performed on 130 limbs in 92 patients. RFA was the procedure of choice in 53 limbs over the first 24-month period of the study. This technique was subsequently replaced by EVLT, which was performed on the successive 77 limbs. The institutional review board approved the retrospective chart review of patients who underwent saphenous ablation. According to the CEAP classification, 124 limbs were C2-C4, and six were C5-C6. Concomitant procedures included avulsion phlebectomy in 126 limbs, subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery in 10, and small saphenous vein ablation in 4 (EVLT in 1, ligation in 1, stripping in 2). Routine postoperative duplex scanning was initiated at our institution only after recent publications reported thrombotic complications following RFA. This was obtained in 65 limbs (50%) (54/77 [70%] of the EVLT group and 11/53 [20.8%] of the RFA group) between 1 and 23 days (median, 7 days). RESULTS: Occlusion of the GSV was confirmed in 93.9% of limbs studied (94.4% in the EVLT [51/54] and 90.9% in the RFA group [10/11]). The distance between the GSV thrombus and the common femoral vein (CFV) ranged from -20 mm (protrusion in the CFV) to +50 mm (median, 9.5 mm) and was similar between the two groups (median, 9.5 mm vs 10 mm). Thrombus protruded into the lumen of the CFV in three limbs (2.3%) after EVLT. All three patients were treated with anticoagulation. One received a temporary inferior vena cava filter because of a floating thrombus in the CFV. Duplex follow-up scans of these three patients performed at 12, 14, and 95 days, respectively, showed that the thrombus previously identified at duplex scan was no longer protruding into the CFV. No cases of pulmonary embolism occurred. The distance between GSV thrombus and the saphenofemoral junction after EVLT was shorter in older patients (P = .006, r(2) = 0.13). The overall complication rate was 15.4% (20.8% in the EVLT and 7.6% in the RFA group, P =.049) and included superficial thrombophlebitis in 4, excessive pain in 6 (3 in the RFA group), hematoma in 1, edema in 3 (1 in the RFA group), and cellulitis in 2. Except for two of the three patients with thrombus extension into the CFV, none of these adverse effects required hospitalization. CONCLUSION: GSV occlusion was achieved in >90% of cases after both EVLT and RFA at 1 month. We observed three cases of thrombus protrusion into the CFV after EVLT and recommend early duplex scanning in all patients after endovenous saphenous ablations. DVT prophylaxis may be considered in patients >50 years old. Long-term follow-up and comparison with standard GSV stripping are required to confirm the durability of these endovenous procedures.     

大隐静脉曲张术后复发因素的随访初析

目的 调查大隐静脉曲张术后复发因素及可能原因。方法 通过检索2000年1月至2020年5月的PubMed、万方数据和中国知网数据库,收集腔内激光消融（EVLA）、射频消融（RFA）和大隐静脉（GSV）高位结扎剥脱术（HLA）的术后复发的随机对照研究（RCT）文献,采用临床和彩色多普勒超声检查评估,记录复发静脉返流的解剖部位、返流的可能原因和复发的症状性静脉曲张（VVs）的处理。结果 共有9项关于EVA与HLS的RCT文献纳入分析中。在1765条下肢中712条下肢执行HLS手术,354条下肢接受RFA治疗,699条接受EVLA治疗,平均年龄47岁,平均随访3.4年,女性患者占比达77%,轻度GSV曲张（C2-3疾病）接近90%。在所有研究中,大腿段和小腿段是最常见的复发的解剖部位,复发原因包括新生血管、静脉再通、副隐静脉存在、穿支形成、手术技术问题。复发率统计各组的差异较大,RFA：2年随访（一个组）的总复发为（20.5%）,3年（二个组）分别为53.3%和17.1%,5年（一个组）为12.9%。HLS：2年随访（三个组）的总复发分别为16.7%、3.0%和17.5%,3年（二个组）分别为23.1%和21.1%,5年（三个组）为42.6%、26.8%和4.2%。EVLA：2年随访（二个组）的总复发为17.0%和28.6%,3年（一个组）为28.6%,5年（三个组）分别为47.8%、29.6%和5.6%。结论 文献报告GSV曲张手术后复发的部位和原因基本一致,但在复发率在各文献中的差异较大,EVLA、RFA、HLA三种方法均有较高的复发率。     

Popliteal vein thrombosis after radiofrequency ablation of greater saphenous vein for varicose vein

Percutaneous endovenous techniques, such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA), have become the preferred method for treatment for varicose veins associated with great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency. Reports have shown safety and efficacy of these techniques with relatively few complications. Deep venous thrombosis after RFA is rare and usually involves extension of thrombus from great saphenous vein to common femoral vein, hence the requirement for postoperative ultrasound. We report a case of symptomatic popliteal vein thrombosis after RFA of GSV requiring anti-coagulation.     

Endoluminal radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein versus stripping. A preliminary study

AIM: To compare the postoperative courses of patients subjected to closure procedure or stripping of the great saphenous vein (GSV). METHODS: We examined 2 groups of 15 patients with ostial and truncular saphenous insufficiency matched for CEAP clinical and anatomic classes. Group A patients underwent saphenous closure; short stripping was performed on those of Group B. In the Group A surgery was performed under spinal (12) or local (3) anesthesia; the procedure was preceded by crossotomy (5), crossectomy (1) or saphenous ligation (8); in 11 cases micro-phlebotomies were associated. In the Group B surgery was performed under general (5), spinal (7) or local (3) anesthesia; the procedure always was preceded by crossectomy (1); in 11 cases micro-phlebotomies were associated. RESULTS: Group A patients were discharged 6-18 hours after surgery. None presented ecchymosis, hyperemia or skin lesions. Five complained of mild aching thigh pain, which did not require pain medication. All resumed normal daily activities the day after surgery and returned to work after 4.9 days. Six months after surgery, none of the patients had evidence of saphenous vein re-channeling. Group B patients were discharged 12-18 hours after surgery. Nine had ecchymosis on the thigh. Five reported mild thigh pain requiring analgesics. Normal daily activities and work were resumed 2.7 and 9.3 days after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study seems to confirm that endoluminal radiofrequency ablation of the GSV provides good immediate results with no significant complications and can reduce postoperative pain and the length of convalescence with respect to those of stripping.     

Deep venous thrombosis after radiofrequency ablation of greater saphenous vein: a word of caution

PURPOSE: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the greater saphenous vein (GSV; "closure") is a relatively new option for treatment of venous reflux. However, our initial enthusiasm for this minimally invasive technique has been tempered by our preliminary experience with its potentially lethal complication, deep venous thrombosis (DVT). METHODS: Seventy-three lower extremities were treated in 66 patients with GSV reflux, between April 2003 and February 2004. There were 48 (73%) female patients and 18 (27%) male patients, with ages ranging from 26 to 88 years (mean, 62 +/- 14 years). RFA was combined with stab avulsion of varicosities in 55 (75%) patients and subfascial ligation of perforator veins in 6 (8%) patients. An ATL HDI 5000 scanner with linear 7-4 MHz probe and the SonoCT feature was used for GSV mapping and procedure guidance in all procedures. GSV diameter determined the size of the RFA catheter used. Veins less than 8 mm in diameter were treated with a 6F catheter (n = 54); an 8F catheter was used for veins greater than 8 mm in diameter (n = 19). The GSV was cannulated at the knee level. The tip of the catheter was positioned within 1 cm of the origin of the inferior epigastric vein (first GSV tributary). All procedures were carried out according to manufacturer guidelines. RESULTS: All patients underwent venous duplex ultrasound scanning 2 to 30 days (mean, 10 +/- 6 days) after the procedure. The duplex scans documented occlusion of the GSV in 70 limbs (96%). In addition, DVT was found in 12 limbs (16%). Eleven patients (92%) had an extension of the occlusive clot filling the treated proximal GSV segment, with a floating tail beyond the patent inferior epigastric vein into the common femoral vein. Another patient developed acute occlusive clots in the calf muscle (gastrocnemius) veins. Eight patients were readmitted and received anticoagulation therapy. Four patients were treated with enoxaparin on an ambulatory basis. None of these patients had pulmonary embolism. Initially 3 patients with floating common femoral vein clots underwent inferior vena cava filter placement. Of the 19 limbs treated with the 8F RFA catheter, GSV clot extension developed in 5 (26%), compared with 7 of 54 (13%) limbs treated with the 6F RFA catheter (P =.3). No difference was found between the occurrence of DVT in patients who underwent the combined procedure (RFA and varicose vein excision) compared with patients who underwent GSV RFA alone (P =.7). No statistically significant differences were found in age or gender of patients with or without postoperative DVT (P = NS). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent combined GSV RFA and varicose vein excision did not demonstrate a higher occurrence of postoperative DVT compared with patients who underwent RFA alone. Early postoperative duplex scans are essential, and should be mandatory in all patients undergoing RFA of the GSV.