Comparison of Long-Term Results of Endovenous Ablation Techniques and Classical Stripping Operations in the Treatment of Venous Insufficiency

Abstract

Objectives: Chronic venous insufficiency affects approximately 25% of the population and is primarily associated with reflux in the great saphenous vein. Traditional treatments like high ligation and stripping have been effective but are burdened with complications such as postoperative pain, wound infections, and nerve damage, alongside high recurrence rates. In contrast, minimally invasive endovenous techniques, including radiofrequency ablation, endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy, have gained popularity due to their lower complication rates and efficacy demonstrated in short- and medium-term studies. This study synthesizes existing literature comparing these treatment modalities and aims to evaluate the effectiveness of classical stripping and endovenous ablation techniques in the treatment of venous insufficiency. Materials and Methods: Between October 2011 and January 2016, 832 patients underwent different procedures at Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, with a total of 1,390 lower extremities treated. The study assessed patient demographics, procedural outcomes, complications, and quality of life (QoL) improvements following each intervention. Statistical analyses, including t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and logistic regression, were employed to compare outcomes and identify influencing factors. Results: The findings underscored high procedural success across all methods and significant QoL improvements post-treatment. However, no statistically significant differences were observed in QoL outcomes between treatment modalities. Complication rates varied, with EVLA showing higher rates of postoperative ecchymosis and classical stripping associated with increased wound infection incidence. Factors influencing outcomes included body mass index, bilaterality of treatment, and use of venoactive drugs. Conclusion: The study concluded with recommendations for further randomized controlled trials to refine treatment protocols and elucidate longterm efficacy.

Keywords

• Venous insufficiency
• classical stripping
• endovenous laser ablation
• radiofrequency ablation
• quality of life
• complications

Venöz Yetmezlik Tedavisinde Endovenöz Obliterasyon Teknikleri Uygulanan ve Klasik Stripping Operasyonu Yapılan Hastaların Uzun-Dönem Sonuçlarının Karşılaştırılması

Abstract

References

1. 1. Gloviczki P, Comerota AJ, Dalsing MC, et al. The care of patients with varicose veins and associated chronic venous diseases: clinical practice guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53(5 Suppl):2-48.
2. 2. Marsden G, Perry M, Kelley K, et al. Guideline Development G. Diagnosis and management of varicose veins in the legs: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2013;347:f4279.
3. 3. Carroll C, Hummel S, Leaviss J, et al. Clinical effectiveness and costeffectiveness of minimally invasive techniques to manage varicose veins: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:1-141.
4. 4. Rasmussen L, Lawaetz M, Bjoern L, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation and stripping of the great saphenous vein with clinical and duplex outcome after 5 years. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58:421-426.
5. 5. van der Velden SK, Biemans AA, De Maeseneer MG, et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial of conventional surgery, endovenous laser ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy in patients with great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1184-1194.
6. 6. Disselhoff BCVM, der Kinderen DJ, Kelder JC, et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation with cryostripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2011;98:1107- 1111.
7. 7. Lim CS, Davies AH. Pathogenesis of primary varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2009;96:1231-1242.
8. 8. Recek C. Calf pump activity influencing venous hemodynamics in the lower extremity. Int J Angiol. 2013;22:23-30.

9. 9. Sutzko DC, Obi AT, Kimball AS, et al. Clinical outcomes after varicose vein procedures in octogenarians within the Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2018;6:464-470.
10. 10. Anwa MA, Georgiadis KA, Shalhoub J, et al. A review of familial, genetic, and congenital aspects of primary varicose vein disease. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2012;5:460-466.
11. 11. Youn YJ, Lee J. Chronic venous insufficiency and varicose veins of the lower extremities. Korean J Intern Med. 2019;34:269-283.
12. 12. Mutlak O, Aslam M, Standfield NJ. Chronic venous insufficiency: a new concept to understand pathophysiology at the microvascular level - a pilot study. Perfusion. 2019;34:84-89.
13. 13. Rutherford RB, Padberg FT, Comerota AJ, et al. Venous severity scoring: an adjunct to venous outcome assessment. J Vasc Surg. 2000;31:1307-1312.
14. 14. Vasquez MA, Rabe E, McLafferty RB, et al. Revision of the venous clinical severity score: venous outcomes consensus statement: special communication of the American Venous Forum Ad Hoc Outcomes Working Group. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52:1387-1396.
15. 15. Malgor RD, Labropoulos N. Diagnosis of venous disease with duplex ultrasound. Phlebology. 2013;28(Suppl 1):158-161.
16. 16. Ahmad S. Efficacy of Percutaneous Sclerotherapy in Low Flow Venous Malformations - A Single Center Series. Neurointervention. 2019;14:53-60.
17. 17. Garcia-Gimeno M, Rodrıguez-Camarero S, Tagarro-Villalba S, et al. Duplex mapping of 2036 primary varicose veins. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49:681-689.
18. 18. Van Gent WB, Wilschut ED, Wittens C. Management of venous ulcer disease. BMJ. 2010;341:c6045.
19. 19. Mansilha A, Sousa J. Pathophysiological Mechanisms of Chronic Venous Disease and Implications for Venoactive Drug Therapy. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19:1669.
20. 20. Singh G, Alshareef S, Meka M. Deep Vein Thrombosis Secondary to Extrinsic Compression: A Case Report. Cureus. 2020;2:e11160.
21. 21. Chaochankit W, Akaraborworn O. Phlegmasia Cerulea Dolens with Compartment Syndrome. Ann Vasc Dis. 2018;11:355-357.
22. 22. Szary C, Wilczko J, Plucinska D, et al. The Analysis of Selected Morphological and Hemodynamic Parameters of the Venous System and Their Presumable Impact on the Risk of Recurrence after Varicose Vein Treatment. J Clin Med. 2021;10:455.
23. 23. Scheltinga MR, Wijburg ER, Keulers BJ, et al. Conventional versus invaginated stripping of the great saphenous vein: a randomized, doubleblind, controlled clinical trial. World J Surg. 2007;31:2236-2242.
24. 24. Goode SD, Chowdhury A, Crockett M, et al. Laser and radiofrequency ablation study (LARA study): a randomized study comparing radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation (810 nm). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40:246-253.
25. 25. Savolyuk SI, Khodos VA, Herashchenko RA, et al. Effective use of various minimally invasive technologies eliminating vertical reflux in the treatment of chronic diseases of the lower limb veins. Wiad Lek. 2020;73:329-331.
26. 26. Zhang X, Wang X, Gao C, et al. A 1470-nm laser combined with foam sclerotherapy in day surgery: a better choice for lower limb varicose veins. Lasers Med Sci. 2018;33:1505-1511.
27. 27. Rasmussen L, Lawaetz M, Serup J, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins with 3-year follow-up. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2013;1:349-356.
28. 28. Krysa J, Jones GT, van Rij AM. Evidence for a genetic role in varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency. Phlebology. 2012;27:329-335.
29. 29. De Maeseneer MGR, Biemans AA, Pichot O. New concepts on recurrence of varicose veins according to the different treatment techniques. Phlébologie. 2013;66:54-60.