Diagnostic value of pelvic venography in female patients with pelvic varicose veins and vulvar varicosities

Current Best Practice in the Management of Varicose Veins

This article outlines the current best practice in the management of varicose veins. “Varicose veins” traditionally means bulging veins, usually seen on the legs, when standing. It is now a general term used to describe these bulging veins, and also underlying incompetent veins that reflux and cause the surface varicose veins. Importantly, “varicose veins” is often used for superficial venous reflux even in the absence of visible bulging veins. These can be simply called “hidden varicose veins”. Varicose veins usually deteriorate, progressing to discomfort, swollen ankles, skin damage, leg ulcers, superficial venous thrombosis and venous bleeds. Patients with varicose veins and symptoms or signs have a significant advantage in having treatment over conservative treatment with compression stockings or venotropic drugs. Small varicose veins or telangiectasia without symptoms or signs can be treated for cosmetic reasons. However, most have underlying venous reflux from saphenous, perforator or local “feeding veins” and so investigation with venous duplex should be mandatory before treatment. Best practice for investigating leg varicose veins is venous duplex ultrasound in the erect position, performed by a specialist trained in ultrasonography optimally not the doctor who performs the treatment. Pelvic vein reflux is best investigated with transvaginal duplex ultrasound (TVS), performed using the Holdstock-Harrison protocol. In men or women unable to have TVS, venography or cross-sectional imaging is needed. Best practice for treating truncal vein incompetence is endovenous thermal ablation. Increasing evidence suggests that significant incompetent perforating veins should be found and treated by thermal ablation using the transluminal occlusion of perforator (TRLOP) approach, and that incompetent pelvic veins refluxing into symptomatic varicose veins in the genital region or leg should be treated by coil embolisation. Bulging varicosities should be treated by phlebectomy at the time of truncal vein ablation. Monitoring and reporting outcomes is essential for doctors and patients; hence, participation in a venous registry should probably be mandatory.

Relationships of Pelvic Vein Diameter and Reflux with Clinical Manifestations of Pelvic Venous Disorder

The causes of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in patients with pelvic venous disorder (PeVD) are not completely understood. Various authors consider dilation of pelvic veins (PeVs) and pelvic venous reflux (PVR) as the main mechanisms underlying symptomatic forms of PeVD. The aim of this study was to assess relationships of pelvic vein dilation and PVR with clinical manifestations of PeVD. This non-randomized comparative cohort study included 80 female patients with PeVD who were allocated into two groups with symptomatic (n = 42) and asymptomatic (n = 38) forms of the disease. All patients underwent duplex scanning and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) of PeVs with in vivo labeled red blood cells (RBCs). The PeV diameters, the presence, duration and pattern of PVR in the pelvic veins, as well as the coefficient of pelvic venous congestion (C_PVC) were assessed. Two groups did not differ significantly in pelvic vein diameters (gonadal veins (GVs): 7.7 ± 1.3 vs. 8.5 ± 0.5 mm; parametrial veins (PVs): 9.8 ± 0.9 vs. 9.5 ± 0.9 mm; and uterine veins (UVs): 5.6 ± 0.2 vs. 5.5 ± 0.6 mm). Despite this, C_PVC was significantly higher in symptomatic versus asymptomatic patients (1.9 ± 0.4 vs. 0.7 ± 0.2, respectively; p = 0.008). Symptomatic patients had type II or III PVR, while asymptomatic patients had type I PVR. The reflux duration was found to be significantly greater in symptomatic versus asymptomatic patients (median and interquartile range: 4.0 [3.0; 5.0] vs. 1.0 [0; 2.0] s for GVs, p = 0.008; 4.0 [3.0; 5.0] vs. 1.1 [1.0; 2.0] s for PVs, p = 0.007; and 2.0 [2.0; 3.0] vs. 1.0 [1.0; 2.0] s for UVs, p = 0.04). Linear correlation analysis revealed a strong positive relationship (Pearson's r = 0.78; p = 0.007) of CPP with the PVR duration but not with vein diameter. The grade of PeV dilation may not be a determining factor in CPP development in patients with PeVD. The presence and duration of reflux in the pelvic veins were found to be predictors of the development of symptomatic PeVD.