OBJECTIVE: Conventional treatment of chronic venous disease with ulceration is layered compression dressings. Saphenous vein stripping is reserved for recurrent or nonhealing ulcers. This study examines outcomes of aggressive endovenous therapy in promoting ulcer healing and/or preventing ulcer recurrence. The role of additional perforator vein ablation also is analyzed. METHODS: This retrospective chart review occurred during a 2.5-year time frame during which 356 patients with venous insufficiency were seen in our vein center and underwent 412 venous operations (56 with bilateral disease treated on separate dates). A cohort of 75 (21.1%) patients with severe chronic venous disease underwent 83 (20.1%) procedures (C5: n = 52, 63%; C6: n = 31, 37%); 8 patients had bilateral procedures. Data analysis included body-mass index (BMI), history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or previous vein surgery, and type of procedure (radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of greater saphenous vein (GSV) alone or GSV and perforator ablation (GSVP)). Complications, ulcer healing rates, and recurrent ulcerations were examined. Descriptive statistics are reported and contingency tables used when appropriate. RESULTS: Overall, the patients were 63.5 +/- 13.4 years of age (men: n = 36, women: n = 39) with a BMI of 32.4 (range, 20.8-53.4). All of the patients had GSV insufficiency and 30 (44%) patients had deep vein incompetence. Only 19 (28%) patients had a history of a DVT and 13 (19%) had previous vein procedures. The 31 extremities with C6 disease had been treated conservatively with compression for an average of 7.6 +/- 4.2 (range, 1-156) months before undergoing ablation. Ablation site was GSV in 49 (72%) and GSVP in 19 (28%). Only two (2.9%) complications occurred: excessive hemosiderin staining and paresthesias each occurred in one patient. Of the C5 patients treated, two (4.7%) developed recurrent ulcerations and five (20%) C6 patients did not heal completely or developed a recurrent ulcer. There was no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing or recurrence rates between C5 and C6 patients treated with and without the addition of perforator interruption. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic venous insufficiency with active or healed ulceration is commonly seen in our academic vein center. In this series, endovenous ablation allowed for excellent healing rates and acceptable recurrent ulcer rates. It is unclear from this small cohort whether the addition of perforator ablation was of benefit in improving venous hemodynamics.
OBJECTIVE: Conventional treatment of chronic venous disease with ulceration is layered compression dressings. Saphenous vein stripping is reserved for recurrent or nonhealing ulcers. This study examines outcomes of aggressive endovenous therapy in promoting ulcer healing and/or preventing ulcer recurrence. The role of additional perforator vein ablation also is analyzed. METHODS: This retrospective chart review occurred during a 2.5-year time frame during which 356 patients with venous insufficiency were seen in our vein center and underwent 412 venous operations (56 with bilateral disease treated on separate dates). A cohort of 75 (21.1%) patients with severe chronic venous disease underwent 83 (20.1%) procedures (C5: n = 52, 63%; C6: n = 31, 37%); 8 patients had bilateral procedures. Data analysis included body-mass index (BMI), history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or previous vein surgery, and type of procedure (radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of greater saphenous vein (GSV) alone or GSV and perforator ablation (GSVP)). Complications, ulcer healing rates, and recurrent ulcerations were examined. Descriptive statistics are reported and contingency tables used when appropriate. RESULTS: Overall, the patients were 63.5 +/- 13.4 years of age (men: n = 36, women: n = 39) with a BMI of 32.4 (range, 20.8-53.4). All of the patients had GSV insufficiency and 30 (44%) patients had deep vein incompetence. Only 19 (28%) patients had a history of a DVT and 13 (19%) had previous vein procedures. The 31 extremities with C6 disease had been treated conservatively with compression for an average of 7.6 +/- 4.2 (range, 1-156) months before undergoing ablation. Ablation site was GSV in 49 (72%) and GSVP in 19 (28%). Only two (2.9%) complications occurred: excessive hemosiderin staining and paresthesias each occurred in one patient. Of the C5 patients treated, two (4.7%) developed recurrent ulcerations and five (20%) C6 patients did not heal completely or developed a recurrent ulcer. There was no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing or recurrence rates between C5 and C6 patients treated with and without the addition of perforator interruption. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic venous insufficiency with active or healed ulceration is commonly seen in our academic vein center. In this series, endovenous ablation allowed for excellent healing rates and acceptable recurrent ulcer rates. It is unclear from this small cohort whether the addition of perforator ablation was of benefit in improving venous hemodynamics.
Authors: Jamie R Barwell; Colin E Davies; Jane Deacon; Kate Harvey; Julia Minor; Antonio Sassano; Maxine Taylor; Jenny Usher; Clare Wakely; Jonathan J Earnshaw; Brian P Heather; David C Mitchell; Mark R Whyman; Keith R Poskitt Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-06-05 Impact factor: 79.321