Endovenous laser ablation versus conventional surgery in the treatment of small saphenous vein incompetence

Endovenous Microwave Ablation Versus Laser Ablation for Small Saphenous Vein Varicosis

INTRODUCTION

Laser and radiofrequency ablation are two thermal ablation methods currently widely used to treat lower limb venous insufficiency. However, very few studies have been conducted on the use of microwaves, a form of thermal ablation, for the treatment of small saphenous vein (SSV) insufficiency. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of endovenous microwave ablation (EMA) for the treatment of SSV insufficiency.

METHODS

The clinical data of 126 patients (126 lower limbs) with SSV insufficiency (SSV trunk reflux time ≥ 500 ms on lower limb color Doppler ultrasound) treated at the Surgery Department of The Sixth People's Hospital of Zhuji from January 2020 to June 2022 were analyzed retrospectively; 64 patients underwent EMA and 62 underwent endovenous laser ablation (EVLA). The perioperative marker data [duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, length of thermal ablation, duration of thermal ablation, number of incisions, and numerical pain rating scale (NPRS)], complication data [skin ecchymosis, skin burns, surgical site infection, paresthesia, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT)], venous clinical severity score (VCSS), chronic venous disease quality of life questionnaire (CIVIQ-20) before and 1, 3, 12 months after surgery, and SSV trunk occlusion rate at 12 months after surgery were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

No significant differences in the surgery or hospitalization durations were observed between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the length of the SSV that required thermal ablation between the two groups; however, the thermal ablation time was shorter in the EMA group than that in the EVLA group (6.14 ± 1.47 min vs 7.05 ± 1.16 min, P < 0.001). There were no statistical differences in the number of incisions, volume of tumescent solution used, or quantity of sclerosing foam used. The NPRS scores of the EMA group at 24 h and 72 h after surgery were significantly greater than those of the EVLA group (4.03 ± 0.98 vs 3.52 ± 1.28, P = 0.013; 3.78 ± 1.06 vs 3.15 ± 1.03, P = 0.001). Moreover, the two groups showed no significant difference in the NPRS score at 1 month (1.14 ± 0.84 vs 1.07 ± 0.75, P = 0.623). The EMA and EVLA group patients experienced similar postoperative complications. The VCSS and CIVIQ-20 score significantly improved at 1, 3, and 12 months after surgery. The VCSS and CIVIQ-20 scores were compared between the two groups at 12 months after surgery, and there were no significant differences (1.44 ± 0.63 vs 1.56 ± 0.56, P = 0.261; 24.24 ± 4.96 vs 25.19 ± 5.36, P = 0.304). There was no significant difference in the incidence of SSV trunk occlusion at 12 months after surgery between the two groups (95.31% vs 96.77%, OR 1.475; 95% CI 0.238-9.146, P = 1.000).

CONCLUSION

EMA and EVLA are equally effective treatment methods for SSV insufficiency. EMA is associated with higher NPRS scores in the early postoperative period.

A systematic review of endovenous ablation for the treatment of small saphenous varicose veins

Insufficiency of the small saphenous vein causes 15% of varicose veins in the lower extremities. Endovenous ablation for the treatment of small saphenous vein varices has become a trend, and an increasing number of studies have reported the effects of different types of endovenous ablation in patients with small saphenous varicose veins. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the results of existing studies on endovenous ablation for the treatment of small saphenous varicose veins, compare its role and efficacy, and provide insights into the future development of endovenous ablation for treating small saphenous varicose veins. A systematic review of literature published from January 1, 2002 to January 1, 2022 was conducted from PubMed, Embase, and China Academic Journals full-text databases. The pre-determined inclusion criteria were clinical literature of endovenous ablation for treating small saphenous varicose veins. Keywords included "ablation", "small saphenous vein", "lesser saphenous vein", "short saphenous vein", "xiaoyinjingmai" and "xiaorong". Of the 506 articles screened, 33 articles were included in this review: 19 articles were related to endovenous laser ablation, five were related to mechanochemical ablation, seven were related to radiofrequency ablation, and two were related to both endovenous laser ablation and radiofrequency ablation. The anatomical success rate of endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, and mechanochemical ablation were 94.3%, 96.0%, and 88.1%, respectively, and the heterogeneities were all moderate. Most of the current studies are of a low-quality level of research. Hence, long-term follow-up studies and large-scale randomized controlled trials are required to obtain high-quality evidence. Although the gold standard for the treatment of small saphenous vein insufficiency remains unclear, endovenous ablation is still the recommended method.

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.

A systematic review supporting the Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Venous Forum, and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society guidelines on the management of varicose veins

BACKGROUND

Several diagnostic tests and treatment options for patients with lower extremity varicose veins have existed for decades. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the latest evidence to support the forthcoming updates of the clinical practice guidelines on the management of varicose veins for the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), the American Venous Forum (AVF) and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases for studies that addressed four clinical questions identified by the AVF and the SVS guideline committee about evaluating and treating patients with varicose veins. Studies were selected and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. A meta-analysis was conducted when feasible.

RESULTS

We included 73 original studies (45 were randomized controlled trials) and 1 systematic review from 12,915 candidate references. Moderate certainty of evidence supported the usefulness of duplex ultrasound (DUS) examination as the gold standard test for diagnosing saphenous vein incompetence in patients with varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency (clinical, etiological, anatomic, pathophysiological classification [CEAP] class C2-C6). High ligation and stripping (HL/S) was associated with higher anatomic closure rates at 30 days and 5 years when compared with radiofrequency ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) (moderate certainty), while no significant difference was seen when compared with endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) at 5 years. UGFS was associated with an increased risk of recurrence compared with HL/S. EVLA was associated with lower anatomic closure rates at 30 days than cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) and higher rates at one and 5 years when compared with UGFS. Thermal interventions were associated with lower generic quality of life scores and an increased risk of adverse events when compared with CAC or n-butyl cyanoacrylate (low certainty). Thermal interventions were associated with a lower risk of recurrent incompetence when compared with UGFS and an increased risk of recurrent incompetence than CAC. The evidence for great saphenous vein ablation alone to manage perforator disease was inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

The current systematic review summarizes the evidence to develop and support forthcoming updated SVS/AVF/American Vein and Lymphatic Society clinical practice guideline recommendations. The evidence supports duplex scanning for evaluating patients with varicose veins and confirms that HL/S resulted in similar long-term saphenous vein closure rates as EVLA and in better rates than radiofrequency ablation and UGFS. Thermal interventions were associated with inferior generic quality of life scores than nonthermal interventions, but had a lower risk of recurrent incompetence than UGFS. The recommendations in the guidelines should consider this information as well as other factors such as patients' values and preferences, anatomic considerations of individual patients, and surgical expertise.

Management of Lower Extremity Pain from Chronic Venous Insufficiency: A Comprehensive Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic venous insufficiency is found to some extent in a large proportion of the world's population, especially in the elderly and obese. Despite its prevalence, little research has been pursued into this pathology when compared to similarly common conditions. Pain is often the presenting symptom of chronic venous insufficiency and has significant deleterious effects on quality of life. This manuscript will describe the development of pain in chronic venous insufficiency, and will also review both traditional methods of pain management and novel advances in both medical and surgical therapy for this disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pain in chronic venous insufficiency is a common complication which remains poorly correlated in recent studies with the clinically observable extent of disease. Although lifestyle modification remains the foundation of treatment for pain associated with chronic venous sufficiency, compression devices and various pharmacologic agents have emerged as safe and effective treatments for pain in these patients. In patients for whom these measures are insufficient, recently developed minimally invasive vascular surgical techniques have been shown to reduce postsurgical complications and recovery time, although additional research is necessary to characterize long-term outcomes of these procedures. This review discusses the latest findings concerning the pathophysiology of pain in chronic venous insufficiency, conservative and medical management, and surgical strategies for pain relief, including minimally invasive treatment strategies.

Randomized clinical trial of radiofrequency-induced thermotherapy combined with transilluminated powered phlebectomy versus high ligation and stripping for the treatment of lower limb varicose veins

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency-induced thermotherapy (RFiTT) combined with transilluminated powered phlebectomy (TIPP) in the treatment of lower limb varicose veins (VVs) in comparison with high ligation and stripping (HLS) combined with TIPP.

METHODS

The patients with lower limb VVs were randomly assigned to RFiTT combined with TIPP or HLS combined with TIPP. The primary end point was total closure rate of the great saphenous vein at 12 months. Secondary end points included Venous Clinical Severity Score and 14-item Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire score changes at 12 months and perioperative complications.

RESULTS

The total closure rate of the great saphenous vein at 12 months was slightly lower in the RFiTT group (90.9% [90/99]) than in the HLS group (97.0% [98/101]) but not statistically significant (χ² = 0.068; P = .08). Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, duration in hospital, duration in bed, and resumption of activities were statistically significantly better with RFiTT than with HLS. There were no significant differences between the groups in deep venous thrombosis, phlebitis, hematomas, pain, and infection. However, skin pigmentation and paresthesia were statistically significantly better with RFiTT than with HLS. At 12 months, both groups showed similar improvement from baseline in Venous Clinical Severity Score (1.28 ± 0.57 in the RFiTT group vs 1.33 ± 0.61 in the HLS group) and 14-item Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire score (67.32 ± 1.29 in the RFiTT group vs 67.45 ± 1.32 in the HLS group); however, neither group was superior to the other.

CONCLUSIONS

RFiTT combined with TIPP is an effective treatment method for lower limb VVs and had a more satisfactory clinical outcome in surgical data, skin pigmentation, and paresthesia than HLS at the 12-month follow-up.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular and surgical revascularization for patients with chronic lower extremity venous insufficiency and varicose veins

BACKGROUND

Chronic lower extremity venous disease (LECVD) is twice as prevalent as coronary heart disease, and invasive therapies to treat LECVD accounted for an estimated $290 million in Medicare expenditures in 2015. Despite increasing use of these invasive therapies, their comparative effectiveness is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatments for patients (symptomatic and asymptomatic) with lower extremity varicosities and/or lower extremity chronic venous insufficiency/incompetence/reflux. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant English-language studies published from January 2000 to July 2016. We included comparative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with >20 patients and observational studies with >500 patients. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term outcomes of placebo, mechanical compression therapy, and invasive therapies (surgical and endovascular) were included. Quality ratings and evidence grading was performed. Random-effects models were used to compute summary estimates of effects.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 57 studies representing 105,878 enrolled patients, including 53 RCTs comprised of 10,034 patients. Among the RCTs, 16 were good quality, 28 were fair quality, and 9 were poor quality. Allocation concealment, double blinding, and reporting bias were inadequately addressed in 25 of 53 (47%), 46 of 53 (87%), and 15 of 53 (28.3%), respectively. Heterogeneity in therapies, populations, and/or outcomes prohibited meta-analysis of comparisons between different endovascular therapies and between endovascular intervention and placebo/compression. Meta-analysis evaluating venous stripping plus ligation (high ligation/stripping) compared with radiofrequency ablation revealed no difference in short-term bleeding (odds ratio [OR]=0.30, 95% CI -0.16 to 5.38, P=.43) or reflux recurrence at 1-2 years (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.37-1.55, P=.44). Meta-analysis evaluating high ligation/stripping versus endovascular laser ablation revealed no difference in long-term symptom score (OR 0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.23, P=.84) or quality of life at 2 years (OR 0.06, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.25, P=.50).

CONCLUSIONS

The paucity of high-quality comparative effectiveness and safety data in LECVD is concerning given the overall rise in endovascular procedures. More high-quality studies are needed to determine comparative effectiveness and guide policy and practice.

Endovenous ablation therapy (laser or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for short saphenous varicose veins

BACKGROUND

Short (or small) saphenous vein (SSV) varices occur as a result of an incompetent sapheno-popliteal junction, where the SSV joins the popliteal vein, resulting in reflux in the SSV; they account for about 15% of varicose veins. Untreated varicose veins may sometimes lead to ulceration of the leg, which is difficult to manage. Traditionally, treatment was restricted to surgery or conservative management. Since the 1990s, however, a number of minimally invasive techniques have been developed; these do not normally require a general anaesthetic, are day-case procedures with a quicker return to normal activities and avoid the risk of wound infection which may occur following surgery. Nerve injury remains a risk with thermal ablation, but in cases where it does occur, the injury tends to be transient.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) versus conventional surgery in the treatment of SSV varices.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (last searched 17 March 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2). We searched clinical trials databases for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EVLA, endovenous RFA or UGFS with conventional surgery in the treatment of SSV varices for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently reviewed, assessed and selected trials that met the inclusion criteria; any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We extracted data and used the Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. When the data permitted, we performed either fixed-effect meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or random-effects meta-analyses where there was moderate to significant heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three RCTs, all of which compared EVLA with surgery; one also compared UGFS with surgery. There were no trials comparing RFA with surgery. The EVLA versus surgery comparison included 311 participants: 185 received EVLA and 126 received surgery. In the UGFS comparison, each treatment group contained 21 people. For several outcomes in the EVLA comparison, only a single study provided relevant data; as a result, the current review is limited in its ability to demonstrate meaningful results for some planned outcomes. The quality of evidence according to GRADE was moderate to low for the outcome measures in the EVLA versus surgery comparison, but low for the UGFS versus surgery comparison. Reasons for downgrading in the EVLA versus surgery comparison were risk of bias (for some outcomes, the outcome assessors were not blinded; and in one study the EVLA-surgery allocation of 2:1 did not appear to be prespecified); imprecision (data were only available from a single small study and the CIs were relatively wide); indirectness (one trial reported results at six months rather than one year and was inadequately powered for SSV varices-only analysis). Reasons for downgrading in the UGFS versus surgery comparison were imprecision (only one trial offered UGFS and several participants were missing from the analysis) and a limitation in design (the study was inadequately powered for SSV participants alone).For the EVLA versus surgery comparison, recanalisation or persistence of reflux at six weeks occurred less frequently in the EVLA group than in the surgery group (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; I² = 51%; 289 participants, 3 studies, moderate-quality evidence). Recurrence of reflux at one year was also less frequent in the EVLA group than in the surgery group (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.77; I² = 0%; 119 participants, 2 studies, low-quality evidence). For the outcome clinical evidence of recurrence (i.e. presence of new visible varicose veins) at one year, there was no difference between the two treatment groups (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.75; 99 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). Four participants each in the EVLA and surgery groups required reintervention due to technical failure (99 participants, 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). There was no difference between the two treatment groups for disease-specific quality of life (QoL) (Aberdeen Varicose Veins Questionnaire) either at six weeks (mean difference (MD) 0.15, 95% CI -1.65 to 1.95; I² = 0%; 265 participants, 2 studies, moderate-quality evidence), or at one year (MD -1.08, 95% CI -3.39 to 1.23; 99 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). Main complications reported at six weeks were sural nerve injury, wound infection and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (one DVT case in each treatment group; EVLA: 1/161, 0.6%; surgery 1/104, 1%; 265 participants, 2 studies, moderate-quality evidence).For the UGFS versus surgery comparison, there were insufficient data to detect clear differences between the two treatment groups for the two outcomes recanalisation or persistence of reflux at six weeks (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.10; 33 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence), and recurrence of reflux at one year (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.29 to 4.92; 31 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). No other outcomes could be reported for this comparison because the study data were not stratified according to saphenous vein.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to low-quality evidence exists to suggest that recanalisation or persistence of reflux at six weeks and recurrence of reflux at one year are less frequent when EVLA is performed, compared with conventional surgery. For the UGFS versus conventional surgery comparison, the quality of evidence is assessed to be low; consequently, the effectiveness of UGFS compared with conventional surgery in the treatment of SSV varices is uncertain. Further RCTs for all comparisons are required with longer follow-up (at least five years). In addition, measurement of outcomes such as recurrence of reflux, time taken to return to work, duration of procedure, pain, etc., and choice of time points during follow-up should be standardised such that future trials evaluating newer technologies can be compared efficiently.

Treatment Modalities for Small Saphenous Vein Insufficiency: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate and compare the anatomical success rates and complications of the treatment modalities for small saphenous vein (SSV) incompetence.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library on the following therapies for incompetence of SSVs: surgery, endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), steam ablation, and mechanochemical endovenous ablation (MOCA). The search found 49 articles (5 randomized controlled trials, 44 cohort studies) reporting on the different treatment modalities: surgery (n=9), EVLA (n=28), RFA (n=9), UGFS (n=6), and MOCA (n=1). A random-effects model was used to estimate the primary outcome of anatomical success, which was defined as closure of the treated vein on follow-up duplex ultrasound imaging. The estimate is reported with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Secondary outcomes were technical success and major complications [paresthesia and deep vein thrombosis (DVT)], given as the weighted means.

RESULTS

The pooled anatomical success rate was 58.0% (95% CI 40.9% to 75.0%) for surgery in 798 SSVs, 98.5% (95% CI 97.7% to 99.2%) for EVLA in 2950 SSVs, 97.1% (95% CI 94.3% to 99.9%) for RFA in 386 SSVs, and 63.6% (95% CI 47.1% to 80.1%) for UGFS in 494 SSVs. One study reported results of MOCA, with an anatomical success rate of 94%. Neurologic complications were most frequently reported after surgery (mean 19.6%) and thermal ablation (EVLA: mean 4.8%; RFA: mean 9.7%). Deep venous thrombosis was a rare complication (0% to 1.2%).

CONCLUSION

Endovenous thermal ablation (EVLA/RFA) should be preferred to surgery and foam sclerotherapy in the treatment of SSV incompetence. Although data on nonthermal techniques in SSV are still sparse, the potential benefits, especially the reduced risk of nerve injury, might be of considerable clinical importance.