A longitudinal single-center cohort study on the prevalence and risk of accessory saphenous vein reflux after radiofrequency segmental thermal ablation of great saphenous veins

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 3. Systematic review of the literature and payor coverage policies. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum and the International Union of Phlebology

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to systemically review the literature on Anterior Saphenous Vein (ASV) reflux treatment and insurance impediments to treatment coverage.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using a PRISMA framework. In addition, a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for ASV treatment was evaluated.

RESULTS

Published evidence and treatment considerations in the literature for ASV treatment are discussed. In 155 of 226 (68.6%) insurance policies reviewed coverage of ASV ablation was allowed while 62/226 (27.4%) did not specify coverage and 9/226 (4.0%) specified ASV treatment was not covered. Of the 155 that provide ASV coverage, 98 (62.2%) provide coverage with criteria such as requiring prior treatment of the great saphenous vein.

CONCLUSIONS

Vein treatment experts should continue to advocate to insurance carriers to update their varicose vein treatment policies to reflect the substantial clinical evidence so that patients with ASV reflux can be appropriately treated.

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 3. Systematic review of the literature and payor coverage policies. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, and the International Union of Phlebology

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to systemically review the literature on Anterior Saphenous Vein (ASV) reflux treatment and insurance impediments to treatment coverage.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using a PRISMA framework. In addition, a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for ASV treatment was evaluated.

RESULTS

Published evidence and treatment considerations in the literature for ASV treatment are discussed. In 155 of 226 (68.6%) insurance policies reviewed coverage of ASV ablation was allowed while 62/226 (27.4%) did not specify coverage and 9/226 (4.0%) specified ASV treatment was not covered. Of the 155 that provide ASV coverage, 98 (62.2%) provide coverage with criteria such as requiring prior treatment of the great saphenous vein.

CONCLUSIONS

Vein treatment experts should continue to advocate to insurance carriers to update their varicose vein treatment policies to reflect the substantial clinical evidence so that patients with ASV reflux can be appropriately treated.

Prospects of Endovenous Laser Ablation (EVLA) Standardization-Mid-Term Results of a Four-Zone Dosimetry Guiding Tool for 1940 nm Laser

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity regarding dosimetry and reporting of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) mandates the development of a standardized protocol. This study presents the mid-term results of EVLA with 1940 nm-laser and radial-fibre, supported by a four-zone dosimetry tool.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four anatomical dosimetry zones for great saphenous veins (GSV) and two for small saphenous veins (SSV) were defined with set power levels. Zone-1G (4 W) extended from the inguinal ligament to the apex of femoral triangle, Zone-2G (4 W) from the apex of femoral triangle to the upper border of patella. Zone-3G (3 W) from the patella to the tibial tuberosity. Zone-4G (2 W) extended from the tibial tuberosity to the ankle. Zone-1S from the sapheno-popliteal junction to the tibial tuberosity. Zone-2S from the tibial tuberosity to the ankle. Power was increased by 1 W for veins >10 mm and decreased by 1 W when fibre sticking was encountered. Pullback-velocity was max. 1 mm/s.

RESULTS

A total of 152 consecutive patients (185 procedures) were recruited. Mean follow-up time was 11.9 months. Mean linear endovenous energy density for GSV was Zone-1G:42 J/cm, Zone-2G:33 J/cm, Zone-3G:27 J/cm, Zone-4G:22 J/cm, Zone-1S:34 J/cm, Zone-2S:27 J/cm. Occlusion rates were 98.9% (1-month) and 93.7% (12-months). Complications at 1 M were low, namely laser-induced paraesthesia (LIP) 2.2% and endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) 1.6%. Persistent LIP (12 M) was observed in 0.5%.

CONCLUSION

The proposed four-zone guiding tool is a step towards standardizing dosimetry and documentation for EVLA with 1940 nm. This strategy shows good mid-term results with minimal complications. Long-term follow-up and application in further centres are necessary to prove its reproducibility. Such a guiding tool could improve the ability to analyse, compare and review different EVLA wavelengths and fibre types.

Lower prevalence of stump reflux after endovenous laser flush ablation of the great saphenous vein

Summary: Background: This single center prospective randomized study was performed to compare the effect of endovenous laser flush ablation (EVLAf) of the great saphenous vein (GSV) close to the sapheno-femoral junction (SFJ) with a standard ablation (EVLAs) up to two cm distally of the SFJ on reflux in the GSV stump. Patients and methods: Between April 2013 and January 2016, 146 legs in 146 consecutive patients, meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria, were treated by EVLA. All patients were randomized into 2 groups. In group 1 EVLAf started from the SFJ level, and in group 2 EVLAs started two cm below the SFJ. The primary endpoint was reflux in the GSV stump after 900 days. Secondary endpoints were reflux in the anterior accessory saphenous vein (AASV), proximal clinically recurrent varicose veins related to reflux in the stump and/or the AASV. Results: At day 900, 27 patients were lost to follow-up. Reflux in the stump was detected in 3.6% in group 1 and in 22.2% in group 2 (p<0.05). Reflux in the AASV was present in 7.1% in group 1 and in 17.46% in group 2 (p=0.09). Proximal clinically recurrent varicose veins were observed in 8.9% in group 1 and in 19.1% in group 2 (p=0.12). The greatest diameter of the stump was significantly larger in group 2 (group 1: 0.41 cm, group 2: 0.6 cm, p<0.001). Conclusions: EVLAf is associated with a significantly lower incidence of reflux in the GSV stump, with a trend to a lower incidence of reflux in the AASV and with a lower incidence of proximal recurrent varicose veins after 900 days follow-up compared to EVLAs. EVLAf may improve the clinical recurrence rate after EVLA of the GSV.

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.

Anterior accessory great saphenous vein as a cause of postoperative recurrence of veins after radiofrequency ablation

There are problems of postoperative relapse of veins after radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The study aims to analyze the causes of postoperative recurrence of veins after RFA. 928 patients with varicose veins of the lower extremities, clinical classes C₂-C₄ according to the CEAP classification, were treated in the ambulatory surgery centers using RFA. The causes of varicose recurrence showed that it was caused by: a) high fusion of the anterior accessory great saphenous vein (AAGSV) with great saphenous vein (GSV) directly in the saphenofemoral junction (SFJ), which was not revealed by preoperative ultrasound (1.7%); a long stump of the GSV after the RFA (7.8%); progression of varicose disease with the small saphenous vein (SSV) and formation of new reflux associated with insufficiency of the saphenopopliteal junction (SPJ) (4.7%); d) insufficiency of perforating veins of the tibioperoneal group (Sherman, Boyd), as well as Gunter (3.8%); e) neovascularization with dilation of small vessels in the area of the saphenofemoral junction (0.97%). A comparative assessment of the quality of life (QL) after different surgery methods 3 years after implementation was carried out. Thus, QL in all patients who underwent surgery significantly improved than before surgery. However, after the RFA GSV+AAGSV, the patients had better QL by all scales than those who underwent only RFA GSV. Operations performed simultaneously on GSV and AAGSV have better functionality than GSV-only RFA.

Combined Treatment of the Anterior Accessory Saphenous Vein and the Great Saphenous Vein

The anterior accessory saphenous vein (AASV) is a common source of primary and recurrent lower extremity varicose veins. Reflux in the AASV can occur independently or simultaneously with great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux. A number of published reports describe recommendations and treatment of symptomatic refluxing AASVs, but descriptions of combined treatment are sparse. Treatment options for ablation of the AASV include both thermal and non-thermal techniques, and results are equivalent to ablation of the great and small saphenous veins. Although not commonly performed, concomitant ablation of the AASV and the GSV is effective and safe, and can be accomplished with minimal additional time. Concomitant treatment is an appropriate option that should be discussed with the patient.

Severity of disease and treatment outcomes of anterior accessory great saphenous veins compared with the great saphenous vein

OBJECTIVE

Endovenous therapies are currently the standard of care for the treatment of patients with symptomatic great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux. The effectiveness and long-term outcomes of these therapies for anterior accessory great saphenous veins (AAGSVs) are poorly defined. The objective of this investigation is to determine treatment outcomes in patients with symptomatic AAGSV reflux compared with patients with symptomatic GSV reflux.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected in the Center for Vein Restoration's electronic medical record system (NexGen Healthcare Information System, Irvine, Calif) and retrospectively analyzed. Treatment outcomes after a standalone ablation and ablation + phlebectomy were compared in patients with isolated AAGSV and GSV reflux. Treatment outcomes were assessed at 1 month and 6 months postprocedure using the revised Venous Clinical Severity Score (rVCSS) and the 20-item Chronic Venous Insufficiency Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (CIVIQ20) survey for quality of life. Medical and surgical comorbidities, Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological classification, body mass index, gender, race, and the average number of procedures performed were all analyzed.

RESULTS

From January 2015 to December 2018, 31,186 patients and 49,193 limbs were assessed. Of these, 91 patients/103 limbs had isolated AAGSV reflux, and 7704 patients/10,371 limbs had isolated GSV reflux. There were 95% and 75% women in the isolated AAGSV and GSV groups, respectively (P ≤ .001). For the ablation-only patients, AAGSV (n = 57 patients/61 limbs) and GSV (n = 5349 patients/7191 limbs), there were no differences in preintervention (7.0 ± 2.0 vs 6.8 ± 2.8, P = .99), 1-month (4.0 ± 2.4 vs 3.9 ± 2.8, P = .99), and 6-month (3.9 ± 2.6 vs 3.9 ± 2.9, P = .55) rVCSS scores. Similar results were observed when ablations and phlebectomies were performed (AAGSV [n = 34 patients/42 limbs] and GSV [n = 1848 patients/2491 limbs]). CIVIQ20 scores for patients with isolated AAGSV and GSV were 53.3 ± 19.6 vs 50.6 ± 18.8 (P = .43) preintervention, 37.2 ± 17.6 vs 35.7 ± 15.9 (P = .91) at 1 month, and 41.3 ± 21.7 vs 35.1 ± 15.7 (P = .36) at 6 months, respectively. Postprocedure scores within groups improved at 1 and 6 months (P ≤ .02); however, 6-month AAGSV CIVIQ20 scores after an ablation increased slightly compared with 1-month scores and were not different to preintervention GSV scores (P = .07). When phlebectomies were performed with ablations, 6-month CIVIQ20 scores were similar between groups (P = .72). There was no difference in the average number of ablations in patients with phlebectomies in the AAGSV or GSV group (1.24 ± 0.44 vs 1.35 ± 0.49, P = .15).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovenous therapies for the treatment of symptomatic AAGSVs demonstrate similar outcomes to patients with symptomatic GSV reflux. For standalone ablations, the rVCSS scores are similar between the groups; however, CIVIQ20 scores increase to preintervention levels in standalone ablation AAGSV patients at 6 months. This increase disappears when phlebectomies are performed with ablations. Based on these data, patients with symptomatic AAGSV treated with ablation also require treatment of the associated tributaries (varicosities) to achieve similar outcomes to patients with GSV, and this calls into question the effectiveness of ablation for isolated AAGSV reflux.

Clinical Results 5 Years after Great Saphenous Vein Stripping

Background: As a standard treatment for the varicose vein of the great saphenous vein (GSV) type, endovenous ablation (EVA) is the main approach. However, as a background to this, in Europe and the United States, neovascularization (Neo) following high ligation (HL) of the saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) at the time of GSV stripping has been emphasized as one of the reasons for the high rate of recurrence. However, in Japan, almost no similar mid- or long-term results of GSV stripping have been reported. Patients and Methods: From September 2011 to March 2014 when EVA was not my surgical option, 413 consecutive legs of patients underwent GSV stripping by myself using the same procedure. The patients were contacted by phone 5 years later, and recurrent varices after surgery (REVAS) and reoperation (REDO) were investigated. A total of 270 legs of the 391 living cases (69%) underwent venous ultrasonography (VUS). HL of the SFJ was performed via central flash ligation with towing and pulling out of the peripheral side branches containing the accessory saphenous veins. In principle, GSV stripping was performed using the invagination method in the range of the entire reflux region from the HL cut section to the confluent section of the side branch causing branch varicose veins. The range of stripping was to the upper thigh in 3 legs, to the middle thigh in 3 legs, to the lower thigh in 7 legs, to the knee in 46 legs, to the upper calve in 83 legs, to the middle calve in 52 legs, and over the full length in 76 legs. Stab avulsion was performed as much as possible for the side-branch varices. On VUS, the SFJ's stump of GSV, the presence of side-branch remnants and their reflux, the presence or absence of Neo, and the recurrent lesions in other sites were evaluated. REVAS were classified as follows: Level 1, symptomatic recurrent lesion for which surgery is indicated; Level 2, asymptomatic recurrent lesion possibly requiring future surgery; and Level 3, asymptomatic recurrent lesion that is unlikely to require future surgery. Results: Of the 391 legs of patients who could be contacted, REDO was performed in 23 (6%), including 15 limbs, immediately after this investigation, and symptomatic REVAS were observed in 29 (7%). In 270 legs examined by VUS, REVAS were diagnosed as follows: 29 legs with Level 1 lesion, 40 legs with Level 2 lesion, and 27 legs with Level 3 lesion. Level 1 REVAS that occurred at the SFJ were observed only in 3 legs (1.1%), Level 1 REVAS due to incompetent perforating veins (IPVs) were observed in 14 legs (5%), and Level 1 solitary tributary varices were observed in 9 legs (3%). Conclusion: In this study, REVAS at the SFJ were significantly less than those in the past reports. It has been shown that REVAS due to IPVs or solitary tributary varices were more important than those at the SFJ. (This is a translation of Jpn J Phlebol 2019; 30(3): 259-265.).

Rezidivraten und Form des Rezidivs nach endoluminaler Ablation der Vena saphena magna – Ein Vergleich von Laserablation (EVLA) 1470 nm, Radiofrequenz (RFITT und ClosureFast) sowie Heißdampf mit einer durchschnittlichen Nachbeobachtungszeit von 3,8 Jahren

Einleitung Erkrankungen des Venensystems, insbesondere auch die Insuffizienz der Vena saphena magna (VSM), gehören zu den häufigsten Krankheitsbildern in unserer Gesellschaft. Zur Behandlung stehen neben Krossektomie und Stripping sowie reiner Sklerosierungstherapie verschiedene endovenöse thermische Verfahren zur Verfügung, die in der vorliegenden Studie untereinander verglichen werden sollten.

Methoden Zwischen 2009 und 2013 wurde bei insgesamt 297 Patienten die insuffiziente VSM mit einer der 4 Methoden EVLA 1470 nm, ClosureFast, RFITT oder Heißdampf abladiert. Als primärer Endpunkt wurde die Rezidiv-Häufigkeit definiert. Die Nachkontrollen mit Duplexsonografie fanden 14 Tage postoperativ, 3 Monate postoperativ, nach 1 Jahr und schließlich jährlich mit einer durchschnittlichen Nachbeobachtungszeit von 3,8 Jahren und einer Follow-up-Rate von 81 % statt.

Ergebnisse Zum Zeitpunkt der letzten Nachkontrolle zeigten sich folgende anatomische Erfolgsraten der behandelten VSM: ClosureFast 95 %, EVLA 97 %, RFITT 79 % und Heißdampf 71 %. Schwerwiegende Komplikationen traten nur beim Heißdampf auf (Nekrosen an der Punktionsstelle), die Schmerzintensität lag bei allen Methoden 14 Tage postoperativ bei einem Median von 1–3 auf einer Skala von 1–10, bei den nachfolgenden Kontrollen lag der Median bei allen Methoden bei 1. Sowohl der Global Index Score (CIVIQ-Score) als auch der Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) ließen sich durch alle endovenösen thermischen Methoden signifikant verbessern. In 5–12 % der Fälle trat ein Reflux der zuvor suffizienten Vena saphena magna accessoria (VSAA) auf.

Diskussion EVLA und ClosureFast sind zur Behandlung von Insuffizienzen der VSM mit hoher Erfolgsrate und vergleichbaren Ergebnissen zu Krossektomie und Stripping geeignet. Die Verfahren RFITT und Heißdampf zeigen im Vergleich signifikant niedrigere Verschlussraten und sind damit besonderen Situationen vorbehalten. Besonderes Augenmerk sollte auf das Vorhandensein einer zunächst nicht refluxiven VSAA gerichtet werden. Da sich hier eine erhöhte Rezidivrate bei dieser Vene zeigte, erscheint es sinnvoll, die VSAA primär mit zu abladieren.

Long-term results of endovenous laser ablation of saphenous vein reflux: Up to nine years of follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) has become the gold standard for the treatment of saphenous vein reflux. We report the long-term clinical and ultrasound results of EVLA.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of patients who underwent EVLA of saphenous vein over four years. Clinical results were assessed using venous clinical severity score (VCSS), and ultrasound results were classified according to Bush classification.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up time of 4.4 years, 168 EVLA-treated patients showed a drop in VCSS from 4.38 to 1.39. Ultrasound results of 140 treated great saphenous veins showed that 64% had one or more cause of recurrence. The presence of neovascularization correlated well with the lack of improvement of VCSS.

CONCLUSION

EVLA resulted in drop in VCSS from 4.38 to 1.39. Among 140 treated great saphenous veins, reflux in the anterior accessory saphenous vein was the primary cause (23.5%) of recurrence.

The 2020 appropriate use criteria for chronic lower extremity venous disease of the American Venous Forum, the Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, and the Society of Interventional Radiology

BACKGROUND

Stimulated by published reports of potentially inappropriate application of venous procedures, the American Venous Forum and its Ethics Task Force in collaboration with multiple other professional societies including the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), American Vein and Lymphatic Society (AVLS), and the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) developed the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for chronic lower extremity venous disease to provide clarity to the application of venous procedures, duplex ultrasound imaging, timing, and reimbursements.

METHODS

The AUC were developed using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, a validated method of developing appropriateness criteria in health care. By conducting a modified Delphi exercise and incorporating best available evidence and expert opinion, AUC were developed and scored.

RESULTS

There were 119 scenarios rated on a scale of 1 to 9 by an expert panel, with 1 being never appropriate and 9 being appropriate. The majority of scenarios consisted of symptomatic indications were deemed appropriate for venous intervention. For scenarios with anatomically short segments of reflux and/or no symptoms, the indications were rated less appropriate. For the indication of edema, a wide dispersion of ratings was observed especially for short segments of saphenous reflux or stenting for iliac/ inferior vena cava disease, noting that there are multifactorial causes of edema, some of which could coexist with venous disease and possibly impact effectiveness of treatment. Several scenarios were considered never appropriate, including treatment of saphenous veins with no reflux, iliac vein or inferior vena cava stenting for iliac vein compression as an incidental finding by imaging with minimal or no symptoms or signs, and incentivizing sonographers to find reflux.

CONCLUSIONS

The AUC statements are intended to serve as a guide to patient care, particularly in areas where high-quality evidence is lacking to aid clinicians in making day-to-day decisions for common venous interventions. This may also prove useful when applied on a population level, such as practice patterns, and not necessarily to dictate decision making for individual cases. As a product of a collaborative effort, it is hoped that this could be utilized by physicians and multiple stakeholders committed toward improving patient care and to identify and stimulate future research priorities.

Double prepuncture as a valuable adjunctive technique for complex endovenous ablation

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to characterize the technique and to report the results of double prepuncture used during complex radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in cases of treating multiple incompetent veins or encountering focal obstruction to catheter advancement.

METHODS

A double prepuncture technique was applied in patients requiring endovascular ablation of multiple veins and patients with great saphenous vein cannulation failure. We treated 13 limbs in 12 patients during a 24-month period with RFA in which the double prepuncture technique was used. Clinical history, operative reports, outcomes, and follow-up were reviewed.

RESULTS

RFA was performed with the double puncture technique on, collectively, 10 great saphenous veins, 5 small saphenous veins, and 5 anterior accessory saphenous veins. Mean preoperative Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology score was 4.38 ± 1.6. Three limbs required prepuncture because of difficulty in advancing the catheter cephalad through tortuosity and focal obstruction after failure with techniques such as a guidewire, a guide catheter, and manual compression with ultrasound guidance. Ten limbs received planned double prepuncture for multiple adjacent incompetent veins, for which venipuncture and cannulation of the second target vein would be difficult after tumescent application to the first vein. Postoperative ultrasound demonstrated successful closure of all target veins in which the double prepuncture technique was used. One patient had a deep venous thrombosis (7.7%) that resolved without complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Double prepuncture is a useful technical adjunct both for simultaneous endovenous ablation of multiple adjacent incompetent veins and when catheter passage is impeded. This technique aids in efficient and successful application of endovenous ablation to complex venous anatomy.

Fate of the tributaries of sapheno femoral junction following endovenous thermal ablation of incompetent axial vein – A review article

Sapheno femoral junctional tributaries are usually left untreated at the time of endovenous ablation of axial vein. The long-term clinical significance of these untreated tributaries remains elusive and there is very little research done into this area. This article reviews the fate of untreated tributaries at sapheno femoral junction following ablation of incompetent axial vein. A literature search and analysis of evidence reveal that the junctional tributaries are one of the commonest (ranges between 8% and 31%) cause for recurrence following endovenous ablation of the axial veins. Follow up of this subset of patients after their axial vein treatment should be considered to identify neoreflux in side branches at sapheno femoral junction and plan treatment.

American College of Phlebology Guidelines – Treatment of refluxing accessory saphenous veins

The American College of Phlebology Guidelines Committee performed a systematic review of the literature regarding the clinical impact and treatment of incompetent accessory saphenous veins. Using an accepted process for guideline developments, we developed a consensus opinion that patients with symptomatic incompetence of the accessory great saphenous veins (anterior and posterior accessory saphenous veins) be treated with endovenous thermal ablation (laser or radiofrequency) or ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy to eliminate symptomatology (Recommendation Grade 1C).

Reconsidering the endovenous revolution

Not as cost-effective as you might think