Endovenous Laser Ablation (EVLA) of the Anterior Accessory Great Saphenous Vein (AAGSV): Abolition of Sapheno-Femoral Reflux with Preservation of the Great Saphenous Vein

AimDuring surgery for sapheno-femoral junction (SFJ) and anterior accessory great saphenous vein (AAGSV) reflux, many surgeons also strip the great saphenous vein (GSV). This study assesses the short-term efficacy (abolition of reflux on Duplex ultrasound) of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) of the AAGSV with preservation of a competent GSV in the treatment of varicose veins occurring due to isolated AAGSV incompetence.MethodThirty-three patients (21 women and 12 men) undergoing AAGSV EVLA alone (group A) and 33 age/sex-matched controls undergoing GSV EVLA (Group B) were studied. Comparisons included ultrasound assessment of SFJ competence, successful axial vein ablation, Aberdeen Varicose Vein Symptom Severity Scores (AVVSS) and a visual analogue patient-satisfaction scale.ResultsAt the 1-year follow-up, EVLA had successfully abolished the target vein reflux (AAGSV: median length 19 cm (inter-quartile range, IQR: 14–24 cm) vs. GSV: 32 cm (IQR 24–42 cm)) and had restored SFJ competence in all patients. Twenty of the 33 patients (61%) in group A and 14 of the 33 (42%) in group B (p = 0.218) required post-ablation sclerotherapy at 6 weeks post-procedure for residual varicosities. The AVVSS at 12 months follow-up had improved from the pre-treatment scores in both the groups (group A: median score 4.1 (IQR 2.1–5.2) vs. 11.6 (IQR: 6.9–15.1) p < 0.001; group B: median score 3.3 (IQR 1.1–4.5) vs. 14.5 (IQR 7.6–20.2), p < 0.001), with no significant difference between the groups. Patient-satisfaction scores were similar (group A: 84% and group B: 90%).Previous intervention in group A included GSV EVLA (n = 3) or stripping (n = 9). Thus, the GSV was preserved in 21 patients. The AVVSS also improved in this subgroup (4.4 (2.0–5.4) vs. 11.4 (6.0–14.1), p < 0.001) and SFJ/GSV competence was found to be restored at the 1-year follow-up.ConclusionsAAGSV EVLA abolishes SFJ reflux, improves symptom scores and is, therefore, suitable for treating varicose veins associated with AAGSV reflux.     

Endovenous laser ablation: Does standard above-knee great saphenous vein ablation provide optimum results in patients with both above- and below-knee reflux? A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Following above-knee (AK) great saphenous vein (GSV) endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) 40% to 50% patients have residual varicosities. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) assesses whether more extensive GSV ablation enhances their resolution and influences symptom improvement. METHOD: Sixty-eight limbs (65 patients) with varicosities and above and below-knee GSV reflux were randomized to Group A: AK-EVLA (n = 23); Group B: EVLA mid-calf to groin (n = 23); and Group C: AK-EVLA, concomitant below-knee GSV foam sclerotherapy (n = 22). Primary outcomes were residual varicosities requiring sclerotherapy (6 weeks), improvement in Aberdeen varicose vein severity scores (AVVSS, 12 weeks), patient satisfaction, and complication rates. RESULTS: EVLA ablated the treated GSV in all limbs. Sclerotherapy requirements were Group A: 14/23 (61%); Group B: 4/23 (17%); and Group C: 8/22 (36%); chi2 = 9.3 (2 df) P = .01 with P(A-B) = 0.006; P(B-C) = 0.19; P(A-C) = 0.14. AVVSS scores improved in all groups as follows: A: 14.8 (9.3-22.6) to 6.4 (3.2-9.1), (P < .001); B: 15.8 (10.2-24.5) to 2.5 (1.1-3.7), (P < .001); and C: 15.1 (9.0-23.1) to 4.1 (2.3-6.8), (P < .001) and P(A-B) = 0.011, P(A -C) = 0.042. Patient satisfaction was highest in Group B. BK-EVLA was not associated with saphenous nerve injury. CONCLUSIONS: Extended EVLA is safe, increases spontaneous resolution of varicosities, and has a greater impact on symptom reduction. Similar benefits occurred after concomitant BK-GSV foam sclerotherapy.     

Fate and clinical significance of saphenofemoral junction tributaries following endovenous laser ablation of great saphenous vein

BACKGROUND: Unlike surgery, endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) abolishes great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux but does not specifically interrupt the GSV tributaries at the groin. The fate and clinical significance of these tributaries were assessed in a prospective study. METHODS: Eight-one legs (70 patients) underwent colour flow duplex ultrasonography 12 months after GSV ablation for primary varicose veins. Saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) reflux, tributary patency, and recurrent or residual varicosities were recorded, and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Severity Scores (AVVSS) were compared with pretreatment values. RESULTS: The GSV had recanalized without evidence of reflux in two patients. None of the 81 legs showed SFJ reflux although one or more patent tributaries were visible in 48 (59 per cent); all were competent. In 32 legs (40 per cent) there was flush GSV occlusion with the SFJ and no tributaries were detectable. One leg showed evidence of neovascularization in the groin. AVVSS values were similar in groups with or without visible tributaries, both before and after EVLA: median (interquartile range) 13.9 (7.6-19.2) before EVLA and 2.9 (0.6-4.8) at follow-up in patients with visible tributaries, and 14.9 (9.2-20.2) and 3.1 (0.8-5.1) respectively in those without. Recurrent varicosities were present in one leg only, due to an incompetent mid-thigh perforating vein. CONCLUSION: Persistent non-refluxing GSV tributaries at the SFJ did not appear to have an adverse impact on clinical outcome 1 year after successful EVLA of the GSV.     

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.     

Laser and Radiofrequency Ablation Study (LARA study): A Randomised Study Comparing Radiofrequency Ablation and Endovenous Laser Ablation (810 nm)

ObjectivesThere have been few randomised studies comparing Radiofrequency Ablation(RFA) with other endovenous techniques. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether RFA of the great saphenous vein (GSV) was associated with less pain and bruising than endovenous laser ablation (EVLA).Materials and methodsThis trial had two cohorts – patients with bilateral GSV incompetence causing varicose veins (VV) and those with unilateral GSV VVs. In total 87 legs were treated in this study. Limbs in the bilateral group were treated with RFA in one leg and EVLA in the other. In the unilateral group limbs were randomised to RFA or EVLA. RFA was performed using the Celon RFiTT system (Teltow, Germany). EVLA was performed using an 810 nm Laser (Biolitec AG, Germany). Phlebectomies were performed as required. Primary endpoints were patient assessed pain and bruising measured by visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary endpoints were patency assessed by duplex ultrasound at 6 weeks and 6 months.ResultsIn the bilateral group, RFA resulted in significantly less pain than EVLA on days 2–11 postoperatively. RFA also resulted in significantly less bruising than EVLA on days 3–9. There were no significant differences in mean post operative pain, bruising and activity scores in the unilateral group. Both RFA and EVLA resulted in occlusion rates of 95% at 10 days postoperatively.ConclusionsRFA was less painful for patients than EVLA and produced less bruising in the postoperative period with comparable success rates but there was no difference in the unilateral group.     

Comparative Study of Outcome of Duplex Ultrasound-Guided,Catheter-Directed Foam Sclerotherapy and Radio-frequency Ablation in the Management of Great Saphenous Varicose Veins

Chronic venous insufficiency of lower limbs is a common problem in adults. We compared the two modalities, namely duplex ultrasound-guided, catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) and radio-frequency ablation (RFA), in the management of great saphenous varicose veins using clinical assessment (Venous Clinical Severity Score, Venous Disability Score) and duplex imaging. Patients presenting with great saphenous vein (GSV) varicosity due to incompetent saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) were selected and randomly assigned in each arm, i.e., duplex UGFS group and RFA group. Patients were assessed on days 7, 30, and 90 both clinically and sonologically. Clinical assessment was based on the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) and Venous Disability Score (VDS). Obliteration of the treated GSV segment was noted in all the limbs of the RFA group (31/31) on duplex sonography on days 7, 30, and 90, while in the UGFS group, out of 30 limbs, obliteration was successful in 28 (28/30) and 2 had treatment failure. However, outcome of both the groups were statistically comparable (P value?>?0.05). After the procedure, improvement in the VCSS was noted in both the study arms in every follow-up and both the modalities were found to be equally effective. Improvement in the Venous Disability Score was there on every follow-up, but maximum improvement was seen on the second visit, i.e., post-treatment day 30. Improvement was statistically significant and equal in both arms after the initial 1 week. Foam sclerotherapy, especially catheter-directed, is as effective as radio-frequency ablation in achieving anatomical obliteration and yielding relief in clinical signs and symptoms in patients with GSV varicosity with SFJ incompetence.     

Endothermal heat-induced thrombosis after endovenous laser ablation: A single-center experience

Lower limb varicose veins are a common vascular disorder producing pain and disability when truncal vein reflux is present. Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) of the great saphenous vein (GSV) is a safe and effective method for treating this condition. An unintended complication of this procedure is endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) of common femoral vein. A retrospective outcomes analysis of patients who underwent EVLA of the GSV at King Khalid University Hospital from June 2006 to November 2018 was conducted to identify the risks factors and incidence of EHIT. Patients were assessed by clinical examination and duplex ultrasound imaging after the EVLA, and patient demographic characteristics and procedural factors predictive of EHIT were determined. Following EVLA, 11,070 duplex ultrasound examinations were performed for 1,230 limbs, and EHIT was detected in 65 (5.3%) limbs in 60 (6.8%) patients. Essentially all EHIT cases were detected in the first week (n = 63; 96.9%) and clot regression occurred over a period of 1–4 weeks. There were no significant differences in patient demographic characteristics or procedural factors between the EHIT and non-EHIT groups, except for the percentage of women (86% v 73%; P = .02), maximum GSV diameter (6.7 ± 2.7 mm v 6.0 ± 2.1 mm; P = .04), and percentage of patients with a competent saphenofemoral junction (41% v 37%; P < .001). EVLA is a safe treatment for great saphenous vein reflux, but EHIT can occur and was associated with female sex, large maximum GSV diameter, and competent saphenofemoral junction. Venous duplex imaging after EVLA is recommended because EHIT is asymptomatic in most patients.     

Comparison of tumescent versus ultrasound guided femoral and obturator nerve blocks for treatment of varicose veins by endovenous laser ablation

BackgroundEndovenous laser ablation (EVLA) is a new method for treating greater saphenous vein insufficiency. Most of physicians use local anesthesia for needle punctures and tumescent anesthesia (TA) to prevent pain and protects the surrounding tissues from the conduction of heat that would originate from the effects of laser energy on the venous wall. The aim of this study is to compare the use of local tumescent anesthesia alone or combined with ultrasound guided femoral and obturator nerve blocks for treatment of varicose veins by endovenous laser ablation.MethodologyThis is a randomized, double blind study included 80 patients scheduled for endovenous laser ablation for varicose veins of the great saphenous vein (GSV) located in the anterior or medial aspect of the leg were prospectively divided into two groups of 40 patients each. Group (A) had EVLA using tumescent anesthesia given by the surgeon. Group (B) had femoral and obturator nerves block before tumescent anesthesia was done. Intraoperative pain associated with applying the tumescent anesthesia and during performing ablation was measured using visual analogue scale. Volume of tumescent was compared in both groups. After finishing the operation, femoral and obturator motor block were evaluated. Postoperative VAS, time of stay in recovery area, patient and doctor satisfaction were also measured.ResultsPain on application of tumescent anesthesia and during surgery revealed that group (A) had more intense pain than group (B). Volume of tumescent used during surgery; group (B) used statistically significant less tumescent solution than group (A). Motor block was measured after finishing the operation, 100% of group (A) had no restriction to active movements while 2.5%, 80% and 7.5% had no restriction, mild restriction and moderate restriction to active movements, respectively in group (B). Group (A) had more pain than group (B) postoperatively. Duration of post procedure stay in recovery area showed no statistically significant difference between the two studied groups. Patients and doctors satisfaction was significantly higher in group (B) in comparison to group (A).ConclusionUltrasound guided femoral and obturator nerve blocks combined with tumescent anesthesia are effective methods of anesthesia during endovenous laser ablation than using tumescent anesthesia alone.     

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。     

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...     

不同术式对下肢静脉曲张患者预后及生活质量改善程度的单中心研究

目的 探讨大隐静脉高位结扎联合剥脱术(HLS)、超声引导射频消融术(RFA)和腔内激光闭合术(EVLA)对下肢静脉曲张(VVLE)患者预后及生活质量的改善程度.方法 收集2018年3月至2021年3月在烟台毓璜顶医院行手术治疗的1590例VVLE患者的临床资料,按照手术方式不同将患者分为HLS组(n=282)、RFA组...     

Inhibitory Effect of TIMP Influences the Morphology of Varicose Veins

ObjectivesImbalance of matrix metalloproteinase enzymes (MMP) and their inhibitors (TIMPs) may contribute to the development of varicose veins. We hypothesised that, histological changes in varicose vein wall correlate with alterations in expression of MMP/TIMP.MethodsVaricose veins (n = 26) were compared with great saphenous vein (GSV) segments (n = 11) from arterial bypass, and with arm and neck veins from fistula and carotid operations (n = 13). Varicose vein wall thickness was measured, enabling categorisation as atrophic and hypertrophic. MMP-2, MT1-MMP, TIMP-2, and TIMP-3 expression were quantitatively analysed by immunohistochemistry.ResultsThere was significantly higher expression of TIMP-2 (immunopositive area 4.34% versus 0.26%), linked with connective tissue accumulation in the tunica media of varicose veins as compared with arm and neck vein controls. TIMP-2 and TIMP-3 expression was higher in hypertrophic than atrophic segments (3.2% versus 0.99% for TIMP-2, 1.7% versus 0.08% for TIMP-3). Similarly, TIMP-2 and TIMP-3 had elevated expression in the thicker proximal varicose vein segments compared to distal (4.3% versus 1.3% for TIMP-2 and 0.94% versus 0.41% for TIMP-3).ConclusionsThis study linked morphological changes in varicose vein walls with MMP/TIMP balance. A higher TIMP expression favours deposition of connective tissue and thus thicker vein wall, reducing matrix turnover by suppression of protease activity.     

Comparison of 980 nm Laser and Bare-tip Fibre with 1470 nm Laser and Radial Fibre in the Treatment of Great Saphenous Vein Varicosities: A Prospective Randomised Clinical Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to compare efficacy, early postoperative morbidity and patient comfort of two laser wavelengths and fibre types in treatment of great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence resulting in varicosities of the lower limb.DesignProspective randomised clinical trial.Materials and MethodsSixty patients (106 limbs) were randomised into two groups. They were treated with bare-tip fibres and a 980 nm laser in group 1 and radial fibres and 1470 nm laser in group 2 in order to ablate the GSV. Local pain, ecchymosis, induration and paraesthesia in treated regions, distance from skin, vein diameter, treated vein length, tumescent anaesthesia volume, delivered energy and patient satisfaction were recorded. Follow-up visits were planned on the 2nd postoperative day, 7th day, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th months.ResultsMean GSV diameters at saphenofemoral junction and knee levels were 12.1 S.D. 4.3 mm and 8.2 S.D. 2.4 mm, and 11.8 S.D. 4.1 mm and 7.9 S.D. 2.6 mm respectively in groups 1 and 2. There were 14 patients with induration, 13 with ecchymosis and nine minimal paraesthesia in group 1 and no or minimal local pain, minimum ecchymosis or induration in group 2. Duration of pain and need for analgesia was also lower in group 2 (p < 0.05). There was significant difference on postoperative day 2, day 7 and 1st month control in favour of group 2 in venous clinical severity scores (VCSS).ConclusionTreatment of the GSV by endovenous laser ablation using a 1470 nm laser and a radial fibre resulted in less postoperative pain and better VCSS scores in the first month than treatment with a 980 nm laser and a bare-tip fibre.     

Randomized clinical trial of VNUS® ClosureFAST™ radiofrequency ablation versus laser for varicose veins

Background:

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are both associated with excellent technical, clinical and patient‐reported outcomes for the treatment of varicose veins. The aim of this study was to compare the techniques in a randomized clinical trial.

Methods:

Consecutive patients with primary great saphenous vein reflux were randomized to EVLA (980 nm) or RFA (VNUS^® ClosureFAST^?) at a single centre. The primary outcome measure was postprocedural pain after 3 days. Secondary outcome measures were quality of life at 6 weeks, determined by the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) and Short Form 12 (SF‐12^®), and clinical improvement assessed by the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS). Analyses were performed on the basis of intention to treat using multivariable linear regression.

Results:

Some 131 patients were randomized to EVLA (64 patients) or RFA (67). Mean(s.d.) pain scores over 3 days were 26·4(22·1) mm for RFA and 36·8(22·5) mm for EVLA (P = 0·010). Over 10 days, mean(s.d.) pain scores were 22·0(19·8) mm versus 34·3(21·1) mm for RFA and EVLA respectively (P = 0·001). The mean(s.d.) number of analgesic tablets used was lower for RFA than for EVLA over 3 days (8·8(9·5) versus 14·2(10·7); P = 0·003) and 10 days (20·4(22·6) versus 35·9(29·4) respectively; P = 0·001). Changes in AVVQ, SF‐12^® and VCSS scores at 6 weeks were similar in the two groups: AVVQ (P = 0·887), VCSS (P = 0·993), SF‐12^® physical component score (P = 0·276) and mental component score (P = 0·449).

Conclusion:

RFA using VNUS^® ClosureFAST^? was associated with less postprocedural pain than EVLA. However, clinical and quality‐of‐life improvements were similar after 6 weeks for the two treatments. Registration number: ISRCTN66818013 ( http://www.controlled‐trials.com ). Copyright © 2010 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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。     

射频消融治疗下肢静脉曲张合并髂静脉压迫的短期疗效分析

背景与目的：目前，髂静脉压迫（IVC）支架植入指征尚不明确，此外，对于IVC合并下肢静脉曲张的患者，部分学者认为如果髂静脉狭窄处两端压力差不大（<2 mmHg），只要单纯处理下肢静脉曲张也能有效改善下肢症状。因此，本研究分析此类患者单纯行下肢静脉曲张射频闭合手术的短期临床结果。方法：回顾性分析2020年6月—2022年6月在首都医科大学附属北京世纪坛医院行下肢静脉曲张射频闭合手术的患者资料，根据髂静脉超声、CTV和下肢静脉造影检查，筛选出IVC伴侧支循环形成而压力差<2 mmHg的患者（IVC+静脉曲张组），并为其使用倾向性评分按照1∶3匹配单纯下肢静脉曲张患者（静脉曲张组）。主要终点指标为术后1周及3、6、12个月隐静脉主干闭塞率，次要终点指标包括术后6、12个月的静脉临床严重程度评分（VCSS）、慢性静脉功能不全生活质量问卷（CIVIQ-20）评分。结果：筛选出IVC+静脉曲张组29例，匹配静脉曲张组患者87例，两组患者基线资料差异无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。术后首次超声检查，两组患者隐静脉主干闭合率均为100.0%；术后3、6、12个月的随访时，静脉曲张组与...     

Ultrasound Guided Foam Sclerotherapy: Factors Associated with Outcomes and Complications

ObjectivesIn recent years ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) has become an increasingly popular treatment for varicose veins. Although many published series detail the results of UGFS, little is known about the factors which are associated with outcomes and complications. The aim of this study was to identify these factors.DesignA review of a prospectively collected database of UGFS which commenced in July 2007.MethodsA successful outcome was defined as complete occlusion of the target vein on duplex scanning at follow-up. Eight factors were assessed to determine whether they were associated with outcomes and complications. These factors were age, gender, compliance with post-procedure compression hosiery, previous varicose vein surgery, single or multiple sites of injection, concentration of sclerosant, volume of sclerosant and pre-procedure severity score.ResultsBetween July 2007 and July 2009, a total of 126 patients (60 men, 66 women) attended follow-up visits and had a post-procedure duplex scan. Targets for UGFS included the great saphenous vein (n = 75), small saphenous vein (n = 13) and anterior accessory great saphenous vein (n = 8). The remainder of procedures involved other veins or more than a single target vein. The median timing of follow-up was 3 months (range 1.5–14 months) with duplex scans revealing complete occlusion of the target vein in 79% of patients. The only factor associated with a successful outcome was compliance with post-procedure compression hosiery (p < 0.05). The most frequently encountered complications following UGFS were skin staining (28%), superficial thrombophlebitis (18%) and pain (14%). The only factor associated with post-UGFS complications was female gender (p < 0.05). When complications were analysed in isolation female gender was also significantly associated with skin staining (p < 0.05), but no other complication.ConclusionsThese data suggest that compliance with post-procedure compression hosiery and gender are important factors associated with a successful outcome and reported complications following UGFS, respectively.     

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。     

Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Sapheno-Femoral Ligation and Stripping of the Great Saphenous Vein with Endovenous Laser Ablation (980 nm) Using Local Tumescent Anaesthesia: One Year Results

ObjectivesComparison of sapheno-femoral ligation and stripping (SFL/S) versus endovenous laser ablation (EVLA, 980-nm) in the treatment of great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency, using local tumescent anaesthesia.DesignRandomised, single centre trial.Materials and methodsPatients with GSV incompetence and varicose veins were randomised to either SFL/S or EVLA. At days 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, and 14 post-treatment, patients completed questionnaires on pain and quality of life. Recurrent varicose veins were evaluated by Duplex ultrasound (DUS) performed at 1 and 6 weeks, and 6 and 12 months.Results130 legs in 121 patients were treated by SFL/S (n = 68) or EVLA (n = 62). Significantly more post-treatment pain was noted after EVLA at days 7, 10 and 14 (p < 0.01; p < 0.01; p = 0.01), more hindrance in mobility at days 7 (p < 0.01) and 10 (p = 0.01), and in self care (p = 0.03) and daily activities (p = 0.01) at day 7 compared to SFL/S. DUS at 1-year follow-up showed 9% recurrences (5/56) after EVLA and 10% (5/49) after SFL/S.ConclusionBoth SFL/S and EVLA, using local tumescent anaesthesia, were well tolerated, with no difference in short-term recurrence rate. In the second week after EVLA, patients experienced significantly more pain resulting in restricted mobility, self care and daily activity compared to SFL/S.     

Factors influencing the effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) in the treatment of great saphenous vein reflux.

OBJECTIVE: Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) is an alternative to surgery for treating sapheno-femoral and great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux. This study assesses factors that might influence its effectiveness. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. METHOD: EVLA was used to treat the great saphenous vein in 644 limbs as part of the management of varicose veins. Body mass index (BMI), maximum GSV diameter, length of vein treated, total laser energy (TLE) and energy density (ED: Joules/cm) delivered were recorded prospectively. Data from limbs with ultrasound confirmed GSV occlusion at 3-months were compared with those where the GSV was partially occluded or patent. Complications were recorded prospectively. RESULTS: GSV occlusion was achieved in 599/644 (93%) limbs (group A). In 45 limbs (group B) the vein was partially occluded (n=19) or patent (n=26). Neither BMI [group A: 25.2 (23.0-28.5); group B: 25.1 (24.3-26.2)], nor GSV diameter [A: 7.2mm (5.6-9.2); B: 6.9 mm (5.5-7.7)] influenced success. TLE and ED were greater p<0.01) in group A (median [inter-quartile range]: 1877J (997-2350), 48 (37-59)J/cm) compared to group B (1191J (1032-1406), 37 (30-46)J/cm). Although TLE reflects the greater length of GSV ablated in Group A (33 cm v 29 cm, p=0.06) this does not influence ED. GSV occlusion always occurred when ED>/=60 J/cm with no increase in complications. CONCLUSIONS: ED (J/cm) of laser delivery is the main determinant of successful GSV ablation following EVLA.