A systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment modalities for anterior accessory saphenous vein insufficiency.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate and compare the outcomes of the available treatment modalities for anterior accessory saphenous vein (AASV) incompetence. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies reporting the outcomes of patients who were treated for primary AASV incompetence were included. The methodologic quality of the articles was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). A random-effects model was used to estimate anatomic success, defined as AASV occlusion. The secondary outcomes were pain during and after treatment, venous clinical severity score, quality of life, esthetic result, time to return to daily activities, and complications. RESULTS: The search identified 860 articles, of which 16 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 609 AASVs were reported. The included studies were of poor or moderate quality according to MINORS score. The pooled anatomic success rates were 91.8% after endovenous laser ablation and radiofrequency ablation (EVLA, RFA, 11 studies), 93.6% after cyanoacrylate closure (3 studies), and 79.8% after sclerotherapy (2 studies). The non-pooled anatomic success rate was 97.9% after phlebectomy and 82% after CHIVA. Paresthesia was seen after EVLA in 0.7% of patients (6 studies). Phlebitis was seen in 2.6% of patients after RFA (2 studies), 27% after sclerotherapy (1 study), and 12% after the phlebectomy (1 study). Deep venous thrombosis and skin burn did not occur. CONCLUSION: Treatment of AASV incompetence is safe and effective. Despite limited evidence, occlusion of the AASV can be achieved with endovenous thermal ablation and cyanoacrylate. There does not appear to be a benefit of EVLA compared to RFA regarding treatment efficacy. Phlebectomy shows promising results if the saphenofemoral junction is competent. Lower results are seen after sclerotherapy and CHIVA. However, studies with sufficient sample sizes of solely treatment of AASV incompetence are needed to draw firm conclusions.

Ten-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial comparing saphenofemoral ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein with endovenous laser ablation (980 nm) using local tumescent anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: The long-term results of saphenofemoral ligation and stripping (SFL/S) were compared with 980-nm bare fiber endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) for the treatment of great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, controlled trial with a follow-up time of 10 years. Patients with GSV incompetence were randomized to undergo SFL/S or EVLA under tumescent anesthesia. The primary outcome was recurrence of groin-related varicose veins seen on duplex ultrasound imaging and clinical examination. The secondary outcomes were (changes or improvement in) CEAP clinical class, venous symptoms, cosmetic results, quality of life, reinterventions, and complications. RESULTS: Between June 2007 and December 2008, 122 patients (130 limbs) were included; of these, 68 limbs were treated with SFL/S and 62 limbs with EVLA. The 10-year estimated freedom from groin recurrence as seen on duplex ultrasound imaging was higher in the SFL/S group (73% vs 44% in the EVLA group; P = .002), and the same trend was seen for clinically evident recurrence (77% vs 58%, respectively; P = .034). Nine reinterventions (17%) were deemed necessary in the SFL/S group vs 18 (36%) in the EVLA group (P = .059). All reinterventions in the SFL/S group consisted of foam sclerotherapy. Reinterventions in the EVLA group included foam sclerotherapy (n = 5), crossectomy (n = 2), and endovenous procedures (n = 11). There was no significant differences in quality of life and relief of venous symptoms. Cosmetic appearance improved, with a better cosmetic rating in the SFL/S group compared with the EVLA group (P = .026). One patient in the SFL/S group had a persisting neurosensory deficit remaining at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed no clear long-term advantage of EVLA with a 980-nm wavelength and bare-tip fiber over high ligation and stripping of the GSV under local tumescent anesthesia.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of mechanochemical endovenous ablation using Flebogrif for varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we reviewed and analyzed the currently available data on the Flebogrif device (Balton, Warsaw, Poland) to define its role in the global varicose vein treatment devices market. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies were eligible if they had included patients treated using the Flebogrif for saphenous vein incompetence, had been reported in English, and had the full text available. The methodologic quality of the studies was assessed using the methodologic index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) score. A random effects model was used to estimate the primary outcome of anatomic success, defined as the occlusion rate of the treated vein. The estimates are reported with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The secondary outcomes were clinical success, complication rate, pain during and after the procedure, and time to return to work. RESULTS: Five articles met the inclusion criteria, reporting 348 procedures in 392 patients. Four studies reported the 3-month anatomic success, and three studies reported the 12-month anatomic success. The pooled 3-month anatomic success rate was 95.6% (95% CI, 93.2%-98.0%). The 12-month anatomic success rate was 93.2% (95% CI, 90.3%-96.1%). The only major complication reported within 3 months was deep vein thrombosis, which developed in 0.3% of the patients. The minor complications of thrombophlebitis and hyperpigmentation had occurred in 13.3% to 14.5% and 3.3% to 10.0% of patients, respectively, within 3 months. The methodologic quality of the included studies was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanochemical ablation using the Flebogrif device is a safe and well-tolerated procedure for the treatment of saphenous vein insufficiency. However, well-designed studies of sufficient sample size and follow-up are required to compare the effectiveness with other endovenous treatment modalities and define the definitive role of the Flebogrif device.

Prospective comparative cohort study evaluating incompetent great saphenous vein closure using radiofrequency-powered segmental ablation or 1470-nm endovenous laser ablation with radial-tip fibers (Varico 2 study).

BACKGROUND: Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency-powered segmental ablation (RPSA) of the incompetent great saphenous vein (GSV) are both known for their excellent technical and clinical outcomes for the treatment of varicose veins. RPSA has reduced postprocedural pain and morbidity with shorter recovery time for the patient compared with EVLA using bare-tip fibers. However, new-generation EVLA devices with less traumatic radial-tip fibers (RTFs) operating at longer wavelengths up to 1470 nm also reduce postprocedural pain. The objective of this study was to compare long-term effectiveness of GSV thermal ablation and postprocedural recovery using RPSA or 1470-nm EVLA with RTF (EVLA-RTF). METHODS: In a comparative prospective monthly altering-treatment cohort study of 311 patients (346 treated legs), each leg with incompetence of the GSV was treated with either RPSA (158 patients, 175 legs) or EVLA-RTF (153 patients, 171 legs). The primary outcome was anatomic occlusion of the GSV, assessed at 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months using Kaplan-Meier statistics and compared using the log-rank test. Secondary outcomes included freedom of varicose vein recurrence, clinical success measured by Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), disease-specific quality of life determined using the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), postoperative pain scores, and time to return to work. RESULTS: The total primary obliteration rate after 36 and 60 months was 96.2% with RPSA and 96.7% with EVLA-RTF (P = .81). Freedom of symptomatic anterior accessory vein recurrence after 5 years was 85% after RPSA and 87% after EVLA-RTF (P = .50). VCSS and AVVQ score presented similar and durable improvements in both groups between 6 weeks and 60 months. There was no difference in postoperative pain scores after both treatments during the first 14 days (mean visual analog scale score, 0.54-2.19). The median time for return to work was 1 day after both treatments. No severe adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: RPSA and EVLA-RTF have similarly high GSV obliteration rates in the long term, and the treatments are equally effective clinically. Both treatments are associated with similar minimal postprocedural pain scores and short recovery times.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of two novel techniques of nonthermal endovenous ablation of the great saphenous vein.

BACKGROUND: Endothermal treatment of the great saphenous vein (GSV) has become the first-line treatment for superficial venous reflux. Nonthermal ablation has potential benefits for acceptability by patients and decreased risk of nerve injury. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of mechanochemical endovenous ablation (MOCA) and cyanoacrylate vein ablation (CAVA) for GSV incompetence. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane databases were searched for papers published between January 1966 and December 2016. Eligible articles were prospective studies that included patients treated for GSV incompetence and described the primary outcome. Exclusion criteria were full text not available, case reports, retrospective studies, small series (n < 10), reviews, abstracts, animal studies, studies of small saphenous vein incompetence, and recurrent GSV incompetence. Primary outcome was anatomic success. Secondary outcomes were initial technical success, Venous Clinical Severity Score, Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score, and complications. RESULTS: Fifteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Pooled anatomic success for MOCA and CAVA was 94.7% and 94.8% at 6 months and 94.1% and 89.0% at 1 year, respectively. Venous Clinical Severity Score and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score significantly improved after treatment with MOCA and CAVA. CONCLUSIONS: These results are promising for these novel techniques that could serve as alternatives for thermal ablation techniques. However, to determine their exact role in clinical practice, high-quality randomized controlled trials comparing these novel modalities with well-established techniques are required.