Abstract
Perforators are those which connect the superficial and deep venous system either directly to main veins or indirectly through the muscular and soleal venous plexus. The emergence of minimally invasive techniques like ambulatory phlebectomy (AP) and foam sclerotherapy (FS) has led to increasing interest about the appropriate therapy for the treatment of isolated perforator incompetence. There have been no studies which have compared the effectiveness of these in-office procedures in isolated perforator incompetence due to the low prevalence of cases. The primary goal of this study is to compare the clinical parameters (return to normal activity, primary symptom relief), functional parameters (procedure time, change in disease severity, course of venous ulcer), and duplex parameters (recurrence in treated veins, complete occlusion of treated veins) in the management of leg varicosities having isolated primary perforator incompetence by ambulatory phlebectomy and duplex guided foam sclerotherapy. Though the procedure time was shorter with FS than AP, the other parameters of primary symptom relief such as change in disease severity, faster healing of venous ulcer, complete occlusion of treated veins in follow-up duplex examination, and lower recurrence of treated veins are better with AP than FS. In conclusion, the interruption of perforators is effective in decreasing the symptoms of chronic venous insufficiency and for the rapid healing of ulcers. The interruption of the incompetent perforating veins appears to be essential to decrease ambulatory venous hypertension. It is apparent from this study that ambulatory phlebectomy stands distinct with enormous benefits and serves as a superior alternative to foam sclerotherapy in treating patients with isolated perforator incompetence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Eklöf B, Rutherford RR, Bergan JJ et al (2004) Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: consensus statement. J Vasc Surg 40:1248–1252
Rutherford RB, Padberg FT Jr, Comerota AJ et al (2000) Venous severity scoring: an adjunct to venous outcome assessment. J Vasc Surg 31:1307–1312
Labropoulos N, Tiongson J, Pryor L et al (2003) Definition of venous reflux in lower-extremity veins. J Vasc Surg 38:793–798
Tessari L, Cavezzi A, Frullini A (2001) Preliminary experience with a new sclerosing foam in the treatment of varicose veins. Dermatol Surg 27:58–60
Partsch H, Clark M, Mosti G et al (2008) Classification of compression bandages, practical aspects. Dermatol Surg 34(5):600–609
Beebe-Dimmer JL, Pfeifer JR, Engle JS, Schottenfeld D (2005) The epidemiology of chronic venous insufficiency and varicose veins. Ann Epidemiol 15(3):175–184
Lees TA, Trender H (2014) Chapter 18: Chronic limb swelling vascular and endovascular surgery: companion to specialist surgical practice, 5th edition, Saunders Elsevier, UK, pp. 317–318
Bergan JJ, Bundens WP (2012) Clinical application of objective testing in venous insufficiency. In: Ascher E (ed) Haimovici’s vascular surgery, 6th Edition. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 1107–1120
Zamboni P, Cisno C, Marchetti F et al (2003) Minimally invasive surgical management of primary venous ulcers vs. compression treatment: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 25:313–318
Guest M, Smith JJ, Tripuraneni G et al (2003) Randomized clinical trial of varicose vein surgery with compression versus compression alone for the treatment of venous ulceration. Phlebology 18:130–136
Burnand KG, Wadoodi A (2009) Handbook of venous disorders: guidelines of the American Venous Forum. Chapter 5: The physiology and hemodynamics of chronic venous insufficiency of the lower limb, 3rd edn. Hodder Arnold, London, UK, pp. 47–55
Negus D, Friedgood A (1983) The effective management of venous ulceration. Br J Surg 70:623–627
Pierik EG, van Urk H, Hop WC, Wittens CH (1997) Endoscopic versus open subfascial division of incompetent perforating veins in the treatment of venous leg ulceration: a randomized trial. J Vasc Surg 26:1049–1054
Sato DT, Goff CD, Gregory RT et al (1999) Subfascial perforator vein ablation: comparison of open versus endoscopic techniques. J Endovasc Surg 6:147–154
Burnand K, Thomas ML, O’Donnell T, Browse NL (1976) Relation between postphlebitic changes in the deep veins and results of surgical treatment of venous ulcers. Lancet 1:936–938
Gloviczki P, Bergan JJ, Rhodes JM et al (1999) Mid-term results of endoscopic perforator vein interruption for chronic venous insufficiency: lessons learned from the North American subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery registry. The North American Study Group. J Vasc Surg 29:489–502
Masuda EM, Kessler DM, Lurie F et al (2006) The effect of ultrasound-guided sclerotherapy of incompetent perforator veins on venous clinical severity and disability scores. J Vasc Surg 43:551–557
Pierik EGJM, Toonder IM, Wittens CHA (1997) Efficacy of subfascial endoscopy in eradicating perforating veins of the lower leg and its relation with venous ulcer healing. J Vasc Surg 26:255–259
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
T. Bavani Sankar and A. Anandi contributed equally to this research work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kishore, R., Sankar, T.B., Anandi, A. et al. A Prospective Study in Comparison of Ambulatory Phlebectomy and Duplex Guided Foam Sclerotherapy in the Management of Varicosities with Isolated Perforator Incompetence. Indian J Surg 78, 356–363 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-016-1481-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-016-1481-2