Randomized clinical trial of the effect of adding subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery to standard great saphenous vein stripping.
Kianifard B, Holdstock J, Allen C, Smith C, Price B, Whiteley MS.
Department of Vascular Surgery, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK.
BACKGROUND: This randomized trial was undertaken to investigate the fate of incompetent perforating veins (IPVs) following saphenofemoral ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein (GSV), with or without subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery (SEPS). METHODS: Patients with venous reflux (greater than 0.5 s) of the GSV and additional IPVs were allocated randomly to standard surgery (saphenofemoral ligation, stripping and phlebectomies alone) or with the addition of SEPS. Patients with ulceration, recurrent veins, deep venous reflux/thrombosis or saphenopopliteal reflux were excluded. Duplex ultrasonography was carried out before operation, and at 1 week, 6 weeks, 6 months and 1 year after surgery. Quality of life questionnaires were completed and visual analogue scale scores collected at the same time points. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were allocated to SEPS and 34 to the no SEPS group. Two patients in the no SEPS group were excluded (one withdrew and the other had the wrong treatment). There were no differences between the two groups with respect to pain, mobility or quality of life scores during follow-up. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the no SEPS group had IPVs on duplex imaging at 1 year (25 of 32 versus 12 of 38; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: IPVs do not remain closed following standard varicose vein surgery. The addition of SEPS was not associated with significant morbidity but did reduce the number of IPVs. Up to 1 year this had no effect on recurrence rates or quality of life, but late results remain to be seen. Registration number: ISRCTN18288048 (
http://www.controlled-trials.com). Copyright (c) 2007 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Br J Surg. 2007 Sep;94(9):1075-80
Mid-term recurrence rate of incompetent perforating veins after combined superficial vein surgery and subfascial endoscopic perforating vein surgery.
Roka F, Binder M, Bohler-Sommeregger K.
Department of Dermatology, Division of General Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
florian.roka@meduniwien.ac.at
BACKGROUND: This study investigated the mid-term (mean, 3.7 years) clinical results and the results of duplex Doppler sonographic examinations of subfascial endoscopic perforating vein surgery (SEPS) in patients with mild to severe chronic venous insufficiency (clinical class 2-6) and assessed the factors associated with the recurrence of insufficient perforating veins (IPVs). METHODS: Eighty patients with mild to severe chronic venous insufficiency undergoing SEPS were evaluated, and duplex findings, as well as clinical severity and disability scores before and after the operation, were compared. Patients with prior deep vein thrombosis (<6 months) or prior SEPS were excluded from this study. RESULTS: There were 27 men and 53 women with a median age of 59.8 years (range, 34.3-80.0 years). The distribution of clinical classes (CEAP) was as follows: class 2, 13.1% (12 limbs); class 3, 22.8% (21 limbs); class 4, 19.6% (18 limbs); class 5, 21.7% (20 limbs); and class 6, 22.8% (21 limbs). The etiology of venous insufficiency was primary valvular incompetence in 83 limbs (90.2%) and secondary disease in 9 limbs (9.8%). Concomitant superficial vein surgery was performed in 89 limbs (95.7%). Twenty (95%) leg ulcers healed spontaneously within 12 weeks after operation, whereas one patient required additional split-thickness skin grafting. Eighteen patients had previous surgery of the great and/or short saphenous vein before SEPS. During a mean follow-up of 3.7 years, recurrence of 22 IPVs was observed in 20 (21.7%) of 92 limbs, and recurrent leg ulcers were observed in 2 (9.5%) of 21 limbs. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to predict factors influencing the recurrence of IPVs (recurrent superficial varicosis, secondary disease, active or healed leg ulcer [C5/6], compression treatment, and previous operation). On multivariate analysis, previous surgery (P = .014) was identified as the only significant factor for the recurrence of IPVs. CONCLUSIONS: SEPS is a safe and highly effective treatment for IPVs. Within a median follow-up period of 3.7 years, only 2 of 21 venous ulcers recurred, both in patients with secondary disease. Nevertheless, we observed recurrence of IPVs in 21.7% of the operated limbs. On multivariate analysis, patients who had undergone previous surgery were found to have a significantly higher rate of recurrence.
J Vasc Surg. 2006 Aug;44(2):359-63.
Neovascularization: an "innocent bystander" in recurrent varicose veins.
Egan B, Donnelly M, Bresnihan M, Tierney S, Feeley M.
Comment in:
J Vasc Surg. 2007 Jul;46(1):177; author reply 177-8.
Department of Vascular Surgery, The Adelaide and Meath Hospital incorporating the National Children's Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin, Ireland.
OBJECTIVE: Varicose vein recurrence after surgery occurs in up to 60% of patients. A variety of technical factors have been implicated, but biological factors such as neovascularization have more recently been proposed. The objective of this study was to characterize the relative contribution of technical and biological factors to recurrence in a large prospective series of recurrent varicose veins. METHODS: Duplex and operative findings were recorded prospectively in a consecutive series of 500 limbs undergoing surgery for recurrent varicose veins between 1995 and 2005 in a university teaching hospital. Only limbs with previous saphenofemoral junction surgery were included. All limbs had preoperative duplex mapping by an accredited vascular technician who assessed the status of the great saphenous vein (GSV) in the thigh and groin, sought sonographic evidence of neovascularization, and reported on the presence of reflux in the short saphenous vein and perforator sites (typical and atypical). All operations were performed with an attending vascular surgeon as the lead operator. RESULTS: Primary GSV surgery was incomplete in 83.2% of limbs. A completely intact GSV system was present in 17.4% of limbs. An incompetent thigh saphenous vein was present in 44.2% of limbs, 37.6% had GSV stump incompetence with one or more intact tributaries, and 16% had both a residual thigh GSV and an incompetent stump with intact tributaries. Non-GSV sites of reflux were identified in 25% of limbs. Neovascularization was identified on duplex scanning in 41 (8.2%) limbs. However, in 27 of these, surgical exploration revealed a residual GSV stump with 1 or more significant tributaries. Each of the remaining 14 (2.8%) limbs had a residual incompetent thigh GSV. CONCLUSIONS: Despite reports to the contrary, neovascularization occurs in a relatively small proportion of patients with recurrent varicose veins. All recurrent varicose veins associated with duplex-diagnosed neovascularization are also associated with persistent reflux in the GSV stump tributaries, thigh GSV, or both. Recurrence after primary varicose vein surgery is associated with inadequate primary surgery or progression of disease, and neovascularization alone is not a cause of recurrent varicose veins.
J Vasc Surg. 2006 Dec;44(6):1279-84; discussion 1284.
Randomized trial comparing endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein with high ligation and stripping in patients with varicose veins: short-term results.
Rasmussen LH, Bjoern L, Lawaetz M, Blemings A, Lawaetz B, Eklof B.
Danish Vein Centre, Naestved, Denmark.
larshrasmussen@yahoo.com
BACKGROUND: Endovenous laser (EVL) ablation of the great saphenous vein (GSV) is thought to minimize postoperative morbidity and reduce work loss compared with high ligation and stripping (HL/S). However, the procedures have not previously been compared in a randomized trial with parallel groups where both treatments were performed in tumescent anesthesia on an out-patient basis. METHODS: Patients with varicose veins due to GSV insufficiency were randomized to either EVL (980 nm) or HL/S in tumescent anesthesia. Miniphlebectomies were also performed. Patients were examined preoperatively and at 12 days, and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Sick leave, time to normal physical activity, pain score, use of analgesics, Aberdeen score, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 quality-of-life score, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and complication rates were investigated. The total cost of the procedures, including lost wages and equipment, was calculated. Cost calculations were based on the standard fee for HL/S with the addition of laser equipment and the standard salary and productivity level in Denmark. RESULTS: A follow-up of 6 months was achieved in 121 patients (137 legs). The groups were well matched for patient and GSV characteristics. Two HL/S procedures failed, and three GSVs recanalized in the EVL group. The groups experienced similar improvement in quality-of-life scores and VCSS score at 3 months. Only one patient in the HL/S group had a major complication, a wound infection that was treated successfully with antibiotics. The HL/S and EVL groups did not differ in mean time to resume normal physical activity (7.7 vs 6.9 calendar days) and work (7.6 vs 7.0 calendar days). Postoperative pain and bruising was higher in the HL/S group, but no difference in the use of analgesics was recorded. The total cost of the procedures, including lost wages, was euro 3084 ($3948 US) in the HL/S and euro 3396 ($4347 US) in the EVL group. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the short-term efficacy and safety of EVL and HL/S are similar. Except for slightly increased postoperative pain and bruising in the HL/S group, no differences were found between the two treatment modalities. The treatments were equally safe and efficient in eliminating GSV reflux, alleviating symptoms and signs of GSV varicosities, and improving quality of life. Long-term outcomes, particularly with respect to recurrence rates, shall be investigated in future studies, including the continuation of the present.
J Vasc Surg. 2007 Aug;46(2):308-15. Epub 2007 Jun 27
Вход
Регистрация
FAQ
Поиск
