Endovenous thermal ablation for healing venous ulcers and preventing recurrence

Endovenous ablation for venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) are a serious manifestation of chronic venous disease affecting up to 3% of the adult population. This typically recalcitrant and recurring condition significantly impairs quality of life, and its treatment places a heavy financial burden upon healthcare systems. The longstanding mainstay treatment for VLUs is compression therapy. Surgical removal of incompetent veins reduces the risk of ulcer recurrence. However, open surgery is an unpopular option amongst people with VLU, and many people are unsuitable for it. The efficacy of the newer, minimally-invasive endovenous techniques has been established in uncomplicated superficial venous disease, and these techniques can also be used in the management of VLU. When used with compression, endovenous ablation aims to further reduce pressure in the veins of the leg, which may impact ulcer healing.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of superficial endovenous ablation on the healing and recurrence of venous leg ulcers and the quality of life of people with venous ulcer disease.

SEARCH METHODS

In April 2022 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scrutinised reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions on the language of publication, but there was a restriction on publication year from 1998 to April 2022 as superficial endovenous ablation is a comparatively new technology.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing endovenous ablative techniques with compression versus compression therapy alone for the treatment of VLU were eligible for inclusion. Studies needed to have assessed at least one of the following primary review outcomes related to objective measures of ulcer healing such as: proportion of ulcers healed at a given time point; time to complete healing; change in ulcer size; proportion of ulcers recurring over a given time period or at a specific point; or ulcer-free days. Secondary outcomes of interest were patient-reported quality of life, economic data and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, carried out risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool, and assessed GRADE certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The previous version of this review found no RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria. In this update, we identified two eligible RCTs and included them in a meta-analysis. There was a total of 506 participants with an active VLU, with mean durations of 3.1 months ± 1.1 months in the EVRA trial and 60.5 months ± 96.4 months in the VUERT trial. Both trials randomised participants to endovenous treatment and compression or compression alone, however the compression alone group in the EVRA trial received deferred endovenous treatment (after ulcer healing or from six months). There is high-certainty evidence that combined endovenous ablation and compression compared with compression therapy alone, or compression with deferred endovenous treatment, improves time to complete ulcer healing (pooled hazard ratio (HR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.47; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 466 participants). There is moderate-certainty evidence that the proportion of ulcers healed at 90 days is probably higher with combined endovenous ablation and compression compared with compression therapy alone or compression with deferred endovenous treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.30; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 466 participants). There is low-certainty evidence showing an unclear effect on ulcer recurrence at one year in people with healed ulcers with combined endovenous treatment and compression when compared with compression alone or compression with deferred endovenous treatment (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.48; I2 = 78%; 2 studies, 460 participants). There is also low-certainty evidence that the median number of ulcer-free days at one year may not differ (306 (interquartile range (IQR) 240 to 328) days versus 278 (IQR 175 to 324) days) following combined endovenous treatment and compression when compared with compression and deferred endovenous treatment; (1 study, 450 participants). There is low-certainty evidence of an unclear effect in rates of thromboembolism between groups (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.51 to 7.97; I2 = 78%, 2 studies, 506 participants). The addition of endovenous ablation to compression is probably cost-effective at one year (99% probability at GBP 20,000/QALY; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endovenous ablation of superficial venous incompetence in combination with compression improves leg ulcer healing when compared with compression alone. This conclusion is based on high-certainty evidence. There is moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that it is probably cost-effective at one year and low certainty evidence of unclear effects on recurrence and complications. Further research is needed to explore the additional benefit of endovenous ablation in ulcers of greater than six months duration and the optimal modality of endovenous ablation.

Interventions for great saphenous vein incompetence

BACKGROUND

Great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence, causing varicose veins and venous insufficiency, makes up the majority of lower-limb superficial venous diseases. Treatment options for GSV incompetence include surgery (also known as high ligation and stripping), laser and radiofrequency ablation, and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. Newer treatments include cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation, and endovenous steam ablation. These techniques avoid the need for a general anaesthetic, and may result in fewer complications and improved quality of life (QoL). These treatments should be compared to inform decisions on treatment for varicosities in the GSV. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous steam ablation (EVSA), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and high ligation and stripping (HL/S) for the treatment of varicosities of the great saphenous vein (GSV).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 2 November 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) treating participants for varicosities of the GSV using EVLA, RFA, EVSA, UGFS, cyanoacrylate glue, MOCA or HL/S. Key outcomes of interest are technical success, recurrence, complications and QoL.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 new RCTs for this update. Therefore, we included 24 RCTs with 5135 participants. Duration of follow-up ranged from five weeks to eight years. Five comparisons included single trials. For comparisons with more than one trial, we could only pool data for 'technical success' and 'recurrence' due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and time points reported. All trials had some risk of bias concerns. Here we report the clinically most relevant comparisons. EVLA versus RFA Technical success was comparable up to five years (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.38; 5 studies, 780 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.41; 1 study, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported recurrence, showing no clear difference at three years (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.99; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence), but a benefit for RFA may be seen at five years (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.52 to 5.06; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). EVLA versus UGFS Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 6.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 38.27; 3 studies, 588 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 6.47, 95% CI 2.60 to 16.10; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in recurrence up to three years and at five years (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.36; 2 studies, 443 participants; and OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.87; 2 studies, 418 participants; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). EVLA versus HL/S Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.23; 6 studies, 1051 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in technical success was seen at five years and beyond (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; 5 studies, 874 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrence was comparable within three years and at 5 years (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1459 participants; and OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.76; 7 studies, 1267 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). RFA versus MOCA There was no clear difference in technical success (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.06 to 54.15; 3 studies, 435 participants; low-certainty evidence), or recurrence (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.81; 3 studies, 389 participants; low-certainty evidence). Long-term data are not available. RFA versus HL/S No clear difference in technical success was detected up to five years (OR 5.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 50.81; 2 studies, 318 participants; low-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.69; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in recurrence was detected up to three years (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.51; 4 studies, 546 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but a possible long-term benefit for RFA was seen (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.75; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). UGFS versus HL/S Meta-analysis showed a possible benefit for HL/S compared with UGFS in technical success up to five years (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.94; 4 studies, 954 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30; 3 studies, 525 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear difference was detected in recurrence up to three years (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.77; 3 studies, 822 participants; low-certainty evidence), and after five years (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.71; 3 studies, 639 participants; low-certainty evidence). Complications were generally low for all interventions, but due to different definitions and time points, we were unable to draw conclusions (very-low certainty evidence). Similarly, most studies evaluated QoL but used different questionnaires at variable time points. Rates of QoL improvement were comparable between interventions at follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our conclusions are limited due to the relatively small number of studies for each comparison and differences in outcome definitions and time points reported. Technical success was comparable between most modalities. EVLA may offer improved technical success compared to UGFS or HL/S. HL/S may have improved technical success compared to UGFS. No evidence of a difference was detected in recurrence, except for a possible long-term benefit for RFA compared to EVLA or HL/S. Studies which provide more evidence on the breadth of treatments are needed. Future trials should seek to standardise clinical terminology of outcome measures and the time points at which they are measured.

Bacterial cellulose an effective material in the treatment of chronic venous ulcers of the lower limbs

Chronic venous ulcers (CVU) of the lower limbs (LL) are common and cause psychological changes and significant social impact, as they make the patient susceptible to pain, absence from work and social bonds. Some materials are suggested as dressings for the treatment of CVU, but they are expensive and are generally not available for use in public health services. To evaluate the efficacy of the treatment for lower limbs (LL) chronic venous ulcer (CVU) using bacterial cellulose (BC), gel and multi-perforated film associated. A randomized controlled clinical-intervention study was performed among participants with LL CVU, divided into two groups: experimental (EG), treated with BC wound dressing and control (CG), treated with a cellulose acetate mesh impregnated with essential fatty acids (Rayon®). The participants were followed for 180 days, evaluated according to the MEASURE methodology. Thirty-nine patients were treated, 20 from the EG and 19 from the CG. In both groups, the wound area decreased significantly (p < 0.001), the healing rate was similar to the CG. The mean number of dressing changes in the SG was 18.33 ± 11.78, while in the CG it was 55.24 ± 25.81, p < 0.001. The healing dressing of bacterial cellulose, gel and associated film, when stimulating the epithelization of the lesions, showed a significant reduction in the initial area, with a percentage of cure similar to the Rayon® coverage. In addition to requiring less direct manipulation of ulcers.

Early versus deferred endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux in patients with venous ulceration: the EVRA RCT

BACKGROUND

Venous ulceration is a common and costly health-care issue worldwide, with poor healing rates greatly affecting patient quality of life. Compression bandaging has been shown to improve healing rates and reduce recurrence, but does not address the underlying cause, which is often superficial venous reflux. Surgical correction of the reflux reduces ulcer recurrence; however, the effect of early endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux on ulcer healing is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of compression therapy with early endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux compared with compression therapy with deferred endovenous ablation in patients with venous ulceration.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, two-arm, multicentre, parallel-group, open randomised controlled trial with a health economic evaluation.

SETTING

Secondary care vascular centres in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a venous leg ulcer of between 6 weeks' and 6 months' duration and an ankle-brachial pressure index of ≥ 0.8 who could tolerate compression and were deemed suitable for endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to either early ablation (compression therapy and superficial endovenous ablation within 2 weeks of randomisation) or deferred ablation (compression therapy followed by endovenous ablation once the ulcer had healed).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was time from randomisation to ulcer healing, confirmed by blinded assessment. Secondary outcomes included 24-week ulcer healing rates, ulcer-free time, clinical success (in addition to quality of life), costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

A total of 450 participants were recruited (224 to early and 226 to deferred superficial endovenous ablation). Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Time to ulcer healing was shorter in participants randomised to early superficial endovenous ablation than in those randomised to deferred ablation [hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.68; p = 0.001]. Median time to ulcer healing was 56 (95% CI 49 to 66) days in the early ablation group and 82 (95% CI 69 to 92) days in the deferred ablation group. The ulcer healing rate at 24 weeks was 85.6% in the early ablation group, compared with 76.3% in the deferred ablation group. Median ulcer-free time was 306 [interquartile range (IQR) 240-328] days in the early ablation group and 278 (IQR 175-324) days in the deferred endovenous ablation group (p = 0.002). The most common complications of superficial endovenous ablation were pain and deep-vein thrombosis. Differences in repeated measures of Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire scores (p < 0.001), EuroQol-5 Dimensions index values (p = 0.03) and Short Form questionnaire-36 items body pain (p = 0.05) over the follow-up period were observed, in favour of early ablation. The mean difference in total costs between the early ablation and deferred ablation groups was £163 [standard error (SE) £318; p = 0.607]; however, there was a substantial and statistically significant gain in QALY over 1 year [mean difference between groups 0.041 (SE 0.017) QALYs; p = 0.017]. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of early ablation at 1 year was £3976 per QALY, with a high probability (89%) of being more cost-effective than deferred ablation at conventional UK decision-making thresholds (currently £20,000 per QALY). Sensitivity analyses using alternative statistical models give qualitatively similar results.

LIMITATIONS

Only 7% of screened patients were recruited, treatment regimens varied significantly and technical success was assessed only in the early ablation group.

CONCLUSIONS

Early endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux, in addition to compression therapy and wound dressings, reduces the time to healing of venous leg ulcers, increases ulcer-free time and is highly likely to be cost-effective.

FUTURE WORK

Longer-term follow-up is ongoing and will determine if early ablation will affect recurrence rates in the medium and long term.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02335796.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions for pathologic perforator veins in chronic venous disease

INTRODUCTION

Perforator veins (PVs) play an important role in the development of chronic venous insufficiency and ulceration. Procedures to eliminate incompetence and reflux in PV may include open surgery, subfascial endoscopic surgery, intravenous ablation techniques and sclerotherapy. With the aim of filling the evidence gap, this is a protocol for a systematic review that will assess the effects of any form of intervention for the treatment of pathologic PVs of the lower limbs in patients with chronic venous disease.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Systematic searches will be carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, IBECS and LILACS databases at a minimum without date or language restrictions for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (trials in which the method of allocation is not truly random). In addition, a search will also be carried out in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, in the clinical trial registries of ClinicalTrials.gov and in the grey literature source OpenGrey.eu. The RCT and quasi-RCT comparison techniques isolated or in combination for treating PVs will be considered. Three review authors will independently perform data extraction and quality assessments of data from included studies, and any disagreements will be resolved by discussion. The primary outcomes will be wound healing and pain. Secondary outcomes will include oedema, adverse events, recurrence or recanalisation, quality of life and economic aspects. The Cochrane handbook will be used for guidance. If the results are not appropriate for a meta-analysis in RevManV.5 software (eg, if the data have considerable heterogeneity and are drawn from different comparisons), a descriptive analysis will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics committee approval is not necessary. We intend to update the public registry used in this review, report any important protocol amendments and publish the results in a widely accessible journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018092974.

A randomized trial of early endovenous ablation in venous ulceration: a critical appraisal: Original Article: Gohel MS, Heatly F, Liu X et al. A randomized trial of early endovenous ablation in venous ulceration. N Engl J Med 2018; 378:2105-114

AIM

Gohel et al. aimed to compare early endovenous ablation vs. deferred endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux with regard to time to healing of venous leg ulcers, rate of healing at 24 weeks, recurrence rate, ulcer-free time and health-related quality of life.

SETTING AND DESIGN

This multicentre, parallel-group (ratio 1 : 1), randomized controlled trial was conducted in a vascular surgery department setting at 20 participating centres across the U.K.

STUDY EXPOSURE

A total of 450 patients with venous leg ulcers were randomly assigned to receive compression therapy and undergo early endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux within 2 weeks after randomization (early-intervention group) or to receive compression therapy alone, with consideration of endovenous ablation deferred until after the ulcer was healed or until 6 months after randomization if the ulcer was unhealed (deferred-intervention group).

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was the time to ulcer healing. Secondary outcomes were the rate of ulcer healing at 24 weeks, the rate of ulcer recurrence, the length of time free from ulcers (ulcer-free time) during the first year after randomization, and patient-reported health-related quality of life.

TRIAL INTERVENTIONS

Endovenous laser or radiofrequency ablation, ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy, or nonthermal, nontumescent methods of treatment (such as cyanoacrylate glue or mechanochemical ablation) were performed either alone or in combination. The treating clinical team determined the method and strategy of endovenous treatment.

RESULTS

The time to ulcer healing was shorter in the early-intervention group than in the deferred-intervention group. Furthermore, more patients had healed ulcers with early intervention [hazard ratio for ulcer healing 1·38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·13-1·68; P = 0·001]. The median time to ulcer healing was 56 days (95% CI 49-66) in the early-intervention group and 82 days (95% CI 69-92) in the deferred-intervention group. The rate of ulcer healing at 24 weeks was 85·6% in the early-intervention group and 76·3% in the deferred-intervention group. The median ulcer-free time during the first year after trial enrolment was 306 days (interquartile range 240-328) in the early-intervention group and 278 days (interquartile range 175-324) in the deferred-intervention group (P = 0·002). The most common complications were pain and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (early-intervention group: pain, six of 28; DVT, nine of 28; deferred-intervention group: pain, six of 24; DVT, three of 24).

CONCLUSIONS

Gohel et al. conclude that early endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux results in faster healing of venous leg ulcers than deferred endovenous ablation. Patients assigned to the early-intervention group also had longer ulcer-free time during the first year after randomization.

Management of Patients With Venous Leg Ulcers: Challenges and Current Best Practice

Introduction It is well documented that the prevalence of venous leg ulcers (VLUs) is increasing, coinciding with an ageing population. Accurate global prevalence of VLUs is difficult to estimate due to the range of methodologies used in studies and accuracy of reporting. (1) Venous ulceration is the most common type of leg ulceration and a significant clinical problem, affecting approximately 1% of the population and 3% of people over 80 years of age (2) in westernised countries. Moreover, the global prevalence of VLUs is predicted to escalate dramatically, as people are living longer, often with multiple comorbidities. Recent figures on the prevalence of VLUs are based on a small number of studies, conducted in Western countries, and the evidence is weak. However, it is estimated that 93% of VLUs will heal in 12 months, and 7% remain unhealed after five years. (3) Furthermore, the recurrence rate within 3 months after wound closure is as high as 70%. (4) (-6) Thus, cost-effective adjunct evidence-based treatment strategies and services are needed to help prevent these ulcers, facilitate healing when they occur and prevent recurrence. The impact of a VLU represents social, personal, financial and psychological costs on the individual and further economic drain on the health-care system. This brings the challenge of providing a standardised leg ulcer service which delivers evidence-based treatment for the patient and their ulcer. It is recognised there are variations in practice and barriers preventing the implementation of best practice. There are patients not receiving appropriate and timely treatment in the initial development of VLUs, effective management of their VLU and preventing recurrence once the VLU has healed. Health-care professionals (HCPs) and organisations must have confidence in the development process of clinical practice guidelines and have ownership of these guidelines to ensure those of the highest quality guide their practice. These systematic judgments can assist in policy development, and decision making, improve communication, reduce errors and improve patient outcomes. There is an abundance of studies and guidelines that are available and regularly updated, however, there is still variation in the quality of the services offered to patients with a VLU. There are also variations in the evidence and some recommendations contradict each other, which can cause confusion and be a barrier to implementation. (7) The difference in health-care organisational structures, management support and the responsibility of VLU management can vary in different countries, often causing confusion and a barrier to seeking treatment. These factors further complicate the guideline implementation process, which is generally known to be a challenge with many diseases. (8).

Cost-effectiveness of treatments for superficial venous reflux in patients with chronic venous ulceration

Background

Venous leg ulcers impair quality of life significantly, with substantial costs to health services. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost‐effectiveness of interventional procedures alongside compression therapy versus compression therapy alone for the treatment of chronic venous leg ulceration.

Methods

A Markov decision analytical model was developed. The main outcome measures were quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) and lifetime costs per patient, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service at 2015 prices. Resource use included the initial procedures, compression therapy, primary care and outpatient consultations. The interventional procedures included superficial venous surgery, endothermal ablation and ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS). The study population was patients with a chronic venous ulcer who were eligible for either compression therapy or an interventional procedure. Data were obtained from systematic review and meta‐analysis of RCTs.

Results

Surgery gained 0·112 (95 per cent c.i. −0·011 to 0·213) QALYs compared with compression therapy alone, with a difference in lifetime costs of €−1330 (−3570 to 1262). Given the expected savings in community care, the procedure would pay for itself within 4 years. There was insufficient evidence regarding endothermal ablation and UGFS to draw conclusions.

Discussion

This modelling study found surgery to be more effective and less costly than compression therapy alone. Further RCT evidence is required for both endothermal ablation and UGFS.

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Points for the Management of Venous Ulcers

Venous ulcer is an extremely common aetiology of lower extremity ulceration, which affects approximately 1% population in most of the countries, and the incidence rate increases with age and female gender. Proper assessment and diagnosis of both the patient and ulcer are inevitable in order to differentiate venous ulcers from other lower extremity ulceration and to frame an adequate and individualised management plan. Venous ulcers generally persist for weeks to many years and are typically recurrent in nature. This consensus aims to present an evidence-based management approach for the patients with venous ulcers. Various management options for venous ulcers include compression therapy, minimally invasive procedures like sclerotherapy and ablation techniques, surgical procedures, debridement and medical management with micronised purified flavonoid fraction (MPFF). Compression therapy is the mainstay treatment for venous ulcer. However, in failure cases, surgery can be preferred. Medical management with MPFF as an adjuvant therapy to standard treatment has been reported to be effective and safe in patients with venous ulcer. In addition to standard therapy, diet and lifestyle modification including progressive resistance exercise, patient education, leg elevation, weight reduction, maintaining a healthy cardiac status and strong psychosocial support reduces the risk of recurrence and improves the quality of life in patients with venous ulcer.

Superficial venous insufficiency from the infernal to the endothermal

This review presents the common diseases associated with superficial venous insufficiency of the leg. These include varicose veins, swelling, skin damage and ulceration. The benefits and rationale behind treatment are discussed, followed by the historical advances from ancient mortality and prayer to the modern endovenous revolution. Finally, an overview of modern treatment options will discuss the evidence supporting the gold standard of endothermal ablation and the cost effectiveness of treatment at this time of challenging resource limitation.