Clinical Results 5 Years after Great Saphenous Vein Stripping

Autor: Kentaro Inoue, Yoshihiko Katayama, Yasuhisa Ozu, Takuya Komada, Hitoshi Kusagawa
Rok vydání: 2019
Předmět:
Zdroj: Annals of Vascular Diseases
ISSN: 2186-5523
0915-7395
DOI: 10.7134/phlebol.19-07
Popis: 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.).
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: