Information de reference pour ce titreAccession Number: | 00005397-201503000-00022.
|
Author: | Nandhra, Sandip MBBS, MRCS *; El-sheikha, Joseph MBBS, MRCS; Carradice, Daniel MBChB, MD, MRCS; Wallace, Tom MBChB, MRCS; Souroullas, Panos MBBS, MRCS; Samuel, Nehemiah MBChB, MD, MRCS; Smith, George MBBS, MD, MRCS; Chetter, Ian C. MBChB, MD, FRCS
|
Institution: | Academic Vascular Unit, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom
|
Title: | |
Source: | Journal of Vascular Surgery. 61(3):741-746, March 2015.
|
Abstract: | Background: This randomized clinical trial compared endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and surgical ligation with attempted stripping in the treatment of small saphenous vein (SSV) insufficiency. The early results demonstrated that EVLA was more likely to eradicate axial reflux and was also associated with a faster recovery, lower periprocedural pain, and fewer sensory complications. The aim of this 2-year follow-up was to establish whether these benefits remained stable over time and whether these improved technical outcomes were associated with less clinical recurrence.
Methods: Patients with primary saphenopopliteal junction and SSV reflux were randomized to EVLA or saphenopopliteal junction ligation and attempted stripping/excision. Outcomes assessed at 2 years included the presence of residual or recurrent reflux, clinical recurrence, sensory complications, the need for secondary intervention, and patient-reported quality of life on the Aberdeen Varicose Veins Questionnaire, SF-36, and EuroQol.
Results: Of 106 patients who were equally randomized and successfully treated according to the protocol, 88 (83%) were successfully assessed at 2 years. The groups were comparable at baseline. At 2 years, EVLA remained superior to surgery in eradicating axial reflux in 36 patients (81.2%) compared with 29 (65.9%) in the surgery group (P = .002). There was no significant difference in clinical recurrence (EVLA: seven of 44 [16%] vs surgery: 10 of 44 [23%]; P = .736), sensory disturbance (EVLA: one [2.4%] vs surgery vs three [6.8%]; P = 1.000) or any quality of life domain.
Conclusions: The results of treatment of SSV insufficiency with EVLA appear durable up until 2 years. The study does not appear to suggest that the improved abolition of reflux after EVLA compared with surgery is associated with superior outcomes than those seen after surgery by this time point, because equal effect was shown in both groups. The sensory disturbance associated with surgery appears to settle over this time frame. EVLA is therefore superior in the short-term and not inferior by 2 years.
(C) 2015Elsevier, Inc.
|
References: | 1. Engelhorn CA, Engelhorn AL, Cassou MF, Salles-Cunha SX. Patterns of saphenous reflux in women with primary varicose veins. J Vasc Surg. 2005;41:645-651.
2. Maurins U, Hoffmann BH, Losch C, Jockel KH, Rabe E, Pannier F. Distribution and prevalence of reflux in the superficial and deep venous system in the general population-results from the Bonn Vein Study, Germany. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48:680-687.
3. Bradbury A, Evans C, Allan P, Lee A, Ruckley CV, Fowkes FG. What are the symptoms of varicose veins? Edinburgh vein study cross sectional population survey. BMJ. 1999;318:353-356.
4. Evans CJ, Allan PL, Lee AJ, Bradbury AW, Ruckley CV, Fowkes FG. Prevalence of venous reflux in the general population on duplex scanning: the Edinburgh vein study. J Vasc Surg. 1998;28:767-776.
5. Kaplan RM, Criqui MH, Denenberg JO, Bergan J, Fronek A. Quality of life in patients with chronic venous disease: San Diego population study. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37:1047-1053.
6. Carradice D, Mazari FA, Samuel N, Allgar V, Hatfield J, Chetter IC. Modelling the effect of venous disease on quality of life. Br J Surg. 2011;98:1089-1098.
7. Smith JJ, Garratt AM, Guest M, Greenhalgh RM, Davies AH. Evaluating and improving health-related quality of life in patients with varicose veins. J Vasc Surg. 1999;30:710-719.
8. Rasmussen LH, Lawaetz M, Bjoern L, Vennits B, Blemings A, Eklof B. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2011;98:1079-1087.
9. Michaels JA, Campbell WB, Brazier JE, Macintyre JB, Palfreyman SJ, Ratcliffe J, et al. Randomised clinical trial, observational study and assessment of cost-effectiveness of the treatment of varicose veins (REACTIV trial). Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:1-196. iii-iv.
10. Labropoulos N, Leon L, Kwon S, Tassiopoulos A, Gonzalez-Fajardo JA, Kang SS, et al. Study of the venous reflux progression. J Vasc Surg. 2005;41:291-295.
11. Engelhorn CA, Engelhorn AL, Cassou MF, Salles-Cunha S. Patterns of saphenous venous reflux in women presenting with lower extremity telangiectasias. Dermatol Surg. 2007;33:282-288.
12. Myers KA, Ziegenbein RW, Zeng GH, Matthews PG. Duplex ultrasonography scanning for chronic venous disease: patterns of venous reflux. J Vasc Surg. 1995;21:605-612.
13. Labropoulos N, Kokkosis AA, Spentzouris G, Gasparis AP, Tassiopoulos AK. The distribution and significance of varicosities in the saphenous trunks. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51:96-103.
14. Labropoulos N, Leon M, Nicolaides AN, Giannoukas AD, Volteas N, Chan P. Superficial venous insufficiency: correlation of anatomic extent of reflux with clinical symptoms and signs. J Vasc Surg. 1994;20:953-958.
15. Winterborn RJ, Campbell WB, Heather BP, Earnshaw JJ. The management of short saphenous varicose veins: a survey of the members of the vascular surgical society of Great Britain and Ireland. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004;28:400-403.
16. Qureshi MI, Lane TR, Moore HM, Franklin IJ, Davies AH. Patterns of short saphenous vein incompetence. Phlebology. 2013;28(Suppl 1):47-50.
17. Bass A, Chayen D, Weinmann EE, Ziss M. Lateral venous ulcer and short saphenous vein insufficiency. J Vasc Surg. 1997;25:654-657.
18. Carradice D, Samuel N, Wallace T, Mazari FA, Hatfield J, Chetter I. Comparing the treatment response of great saphenous and small saphenous vein incompetence following surgery and endovenous laser ablation: a retrospective cohort study. Phlebology. 2012;27:128-134.
19. Samuel N, Carradice D, Wallace T, Mekako A, Hatfield J, Chetter I. Randomized clinical trial of endovenous laser ablation versus conventional surgery for small saphenous varicose veins. Ann Surg. 2013;257:419-426.
20. Coleridge-Smith P, Labropoulos N, Partsch H, Myers K, Nicolaides A, Cavezzi A, et al. Duplex ultrasound investigation of the veins in chronic venous disease of the lower limbs-UIP consensus document. Part I. Basic principles. VASA. 2007;36:53-61.
21. Rutherford RB, Padberg FT Jr, Comerota AJ, Kistner RL, Meissner MH, Moneta GL. Venous severity scoring: an adjunct to venous outcome assessment. J Vasc Surg. 2000;31:1307-1312.
22. Kakkos SK, Rivera MA, Matsagas MI, Lazarides MK, Robless P, Belcaro G, et al. Validation of the new venous severity scoring system in varicose vein surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38:224-228.
23. Garratt AM, Macdonald LM, Ruta DA, Russell IT, Buckingham JK, Krukowski ZH. Towards measurement of outcome for patients with varicose veins. Qual Health Care. 1993;2:5-10.
24. Garratt AM, Ruta DA, Abdalla MI, Russell IT. Responsiveness of the SF-36 and a condition-specific measure of health for patients with varicose veins. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:223-234.
25. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D., CONSORT. 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:726-732.
26. Carradice D, Mekako AI, Mazari FA, Samuel N, Hatfield J, Chetter IC. Randomized clinical trial of endovenous laser ablation compared with conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2011;98:501-510.
27. Carradice D, Mekako AI, Mazari FA, Samuel N, Hatfield J, Chetter IC. Clinical and technical outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of endovenous laser ablation compared with conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2011;98:1117-1123.
28. Proebstle TM, Gul D, Kargl A, Knop J. Endovenous laser treatment of the lesser saphenous vein with a 940-nm diode laser: early results. Dermatol Surg. 2003;29:357-361.
29. Gibson KD, Ferris BL, Polissar N, Neradilek B, Pepper D. Endovenous laser treatment of the small [corrected] saphenous vein: efficacy and complications. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:795-801. discussion: 801-3.
30. Gibson KD, Ferris BL, Polissar N, Neradilek B, Pepper D. Endovenous laser treatment of the short saphenous vein: efficacy and complications. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:795-803.
31. Chaar CI, Hirsch SA, Cwenar MT, Rhee RY, Chaer RA, Abu Hamad G, et al. Expanding the role of endovenous laser therapy: results in large diameter saphenous, small saphenous, and anterior accessory veins. Ann Vasc Surg. 2011;25:656-661.
32. Rasmussen L, Lawaetz M, Bjoern L, Blemings A, Eklof B. 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.
33. Samuel N, Wallace T, Carradice D, Mazari FA, Chetter IC. Comparison of 12-w versus 14-w endovenous laser ablation in the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins: 5-year outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2013;47:346-352.
|
Language: | English.
|
Document Type: | Clinical research study: From the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Society.
|
Journal Subset: | Clinical Medicine.
|
ISSN: | 0741-5214
|
NLM Journal Code: | kd2, 8407742
|
DOI Number: | https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs...- ouverture dans une nouvelle fenêtre
|
Annotation(s) | |
|
|