The Prevalence of Ovarian Varices in Patients with Endometriosis

Application of the Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology classification system in patients with pelvic venous disorders

Introduction: In 2021, the American Vein and Lymphatic Society convened a multi-disciplinary group to develop a valid and reliable discriminative instrument for the classification of patients suffering from pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) referred to as the Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology (SVP) system. Limited data exists regarding the utility of this instrument in the care of patients with PeVD. The goal of this investigation is to apply the SVP classification system to a group of patients treated for PeVDs. Methods: From January 2018 to January 2019, we retrospectively reviewed the records of 70 female patients treated for a PeVD at the Center for Vascular Medicine. Age, race, gender, medical/surgical histories, CEAP classification and intervention types were assessed and patients were categorized according to their SVP classification. The prevalence of each S and V class, their association with gonadal or iliac vein obstructive lesions and the prevalence of lower extremity varicosities was evaluated. Results: The average age of the entire cohort was 47.4 ± 13.4. The race distribution was as follows: African American (6), Hispanic (1), and Caucasian (63). Of the 140 limbs, 57% were C3 or greater with an average rVCSS score of 4.53. At the time of intervention, 54 patients (77%) demonstrated CEAP class 2 disease or greater with 25 patients (35%) demonstrating lower extremity varicosities. Medical co-morbidities included the following: Endometriosis (n = 1), Uterine Fibroids (n = 1), Ovarian cysts (n = 4), history of venous thrombosis (n = 2) and prior lower extremity venous procedures (n = 3). Overall, 47 patients (67.1%) demonstrated S2 disease secondary to dyspareunia, post-coital pain, or dysmenorrhea. S2 alone was observed in 17 patients (24.3%), S2,3a and S2,3a,3b in nine patients each (12.9%), and S2,3b was in 12 patients (17.1%). Thirteen patients presented with isolated extra-pelvic symptoms (19%); four (5.7%) were classified as S3a,3b, and nine (12.9%) were classified as S3b only. Finally, 10 patients (14%) had no pelvic symptoms and thus were classified as S0. V0 disease was observed in 17 patients (24.3%) secondary to a high incidence of iliac vein stenoses (IVS). V1 disease was observed in 1 patient (1.43%). V2 disease was observed in 53 patients (74.3%) secondary to iliac or ovarian vein reflux. Of these, 45 patients (64.3%) presented with reflux in the iliac veins. Sixteen patients had reflux in the common iliac veins, 17 patients exhibited reflux of the external iliac veins, and 41 patients demonstrated reflux of the internal iliac veins. Thirty-two patients (45.7%) presented with V2 disease secondary to reflux of the ovarian veins, 8 of whom presented with isolated ovarian vein reflux without IVS. Bilateral ovarian vein reflux was observed in 6 patients (9%) and unilaterally in 26 (37%) patients with concomitant ovarian vein reflux and IVS observed in 31 patients (44%). In patients with ovarian vein reflux, 89% had a concomitant iliac vein stenosis: (96.9% in the common iliac vein, 81.3% in the external iliac vein and 3.1% in the internal iliac vein). Conclusion: In our patient cohort, 70 women demonstrated 14 different SV classifications. The most common was S2V2, found in 10 patients. Chronic pelvic pain of venous origin, S2 disease, was the most common symptom, present in 47 patients (67.1%); followed by extra-pelvic symptoms as 22 patients demonstrated symptoms of the external genitalia (S3a), and 21 patients had symptoms secondary to the non-saphenous leg veins (S3b). Pelvic varicosities, V2, were also the most common variceal pattern seen in 53 patients, and 17 patients did not have any varices noted by venogram. Non-thrombotic IVS either alone or with ovarian vein reflux was the most common cause of PeVD in this cohort and may reflect referral patterns to our center. To determine the true incidence of these SVP patterns, larger cohort studies are necessary.

Pelvic venous insufficiency secondary to iliac vein stenosis and ovarian vein reflux treated with iliac vein stenting alone

BACKGROUND

We have previously reported that in women with a pelvic venous disorder secondary to pelvic venous insufficiency, 56% will present with an iliac vein stenosis (IVS) and ovarian vein reflux (OVR). The purpose of the present investigation was to determine whether women with combined disease can be treated using iliac vein stenting alone.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data at the Center for Vascular Medicine was performed. We investigated women with pelvic pain or dyspareunia secondary to combined IVS and OVR who had undergone stenting alone. The patient demographics, pre- and 6-month postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) for pain scores, stent type, stent diameter, stent length, and ovarian vein diameters were assessed. All patients had undergone diagnostic venography of their pelvic veins, left ovarian veins, and pelvic reservoirs and intravascular ultrasonography of their iliac veins.

RESULTS

From May 2016 to October 2019, 82 patients with a pelvic venous disorder secondary to IVS and OVR were identified. The present data analysis focused on 38 patients with complete pre- and postoperative VAS scores and duplex scan stent patency data at 6 months. The pelvic and dyspareunia VAS scores at the initial and 6-month follow-up visits were as follows: 6.83 ± 3.19 and 4.24 ± 2.65 and 1.72 ± 2.01 and 0.05 ± 2.0, respectively (P ≤ .001). At 6 months, 29 of the 38 women (76%) reported complete resolution of all symptoms, 26 of 28 (93%) reported complete resolution of their dyspareunia, 5 of 38 (13%) reported significant improvement, and 4 of 38 (10%) reported no improvement. The average ovarian vein diameter was 6.7 ± 2.5 mm. The average stent size and length was 18.20 ± 1.6 mm and 92.41 ± 18.5 mm, with 25 placed in the left common iliac, 2 in the right common iliac vein, and 3 bilaterally. Of the 38 patients, 7 required reintervention (18%). An untreated pelvic reservoir was observed in 17 of the 38 patients (44%). One of the two with no response and six of the patients with improvement had OVR and an untreated pelvic reservoir. The remaining 10 patients with a pelvic reservoir had experienced complete resolution of their symptoms with stenting alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the 38 women with pelvic pain secondary to combined IVS and OVR, 76% achieved complete symptom resolution with iliac vein stenting alone. Most of the women with a pelvic reservoir were asymptomatic and reported full symptom resolution after stenting alone. However, these data suggest that in some women, a relationship might exist between the presence of a pelvic reservoir and the persistence of symptoms. Therefore, for women with combined IVS and OVR, we recommend iliac vein stenting alone and staged ovarian vein embolization only for women with persistent symptoms.