Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_3727_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
29 Мб
Скачать
434 Chapter 42 Radiofrequency treatment of the incompetent saphenous vein
https://t.me/med1917
21. Kabnick LS, Ombrellino M, Agis H, et al. Endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) at the supercial-deep venous junction: A new post-treatment clinical entity, classication and potential treat­ment strategies. Presented at: 18th Annual Meeting of the American Venous Forum, April 14–16, 2006, Miami, FL.
22. Suan S, Arnez A, and Lakhanpal S. Case of the disappearing heat-induced thrombus causing pulmonary embolism during ultrasound evaluation. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55(2):529–531.
23. Dexter D, Kabnick L, Berland T, et al. Complications of endovenous lasers. Phlebology. 2012;27(Suppl. 1):40–45.
24. Kabnick LS, Sadek M, Bjarnason H, Cole­man DM, Dillavou ED, Hingorani AP, Lal BK, Lawrence PF, Malgor RD, Puggioni A. Classication and treatment of endother­mal heat-induced thrombosis: Recommen­dations from the American Venous Forum and the Society for Vascular Surgery. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2021 Jan;9(1):6–22.
25. Weiss RA and Weiss MA. Controlled radiofrequency endovenous occlusion using a unique radiofrequency cathe­ter under duplex guidance to eliminate saphenous varicose vein reux: A 2-year follow-up. Dermatol Surg. 2002;28(1): 38–42.
26. Manfrini S, Gasbarro V, Danielsson G, et al. Endovenous management of saphenous vein reux. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32(2): 330–342.
27. Lurie F, Creton D, Eklöf B, et al. Pros­pective randomised study of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration (closure) versus ligation and vein stripping (EVOL­VeS): Two-year follow-up. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2005;29(1):67–73.
28. Goldman MP, and Amiry S. Closure of the greater saphenous vein with endoluminal radiofrequency thermal heating of the vein wall in combination with ambula­tory phlebectomy: 50 patients with more than 6-month follow-up. Dermatol Surg. 2002;28(1):29–31.
*29. Merchant RF, DePalma RG, and Kabnick
LS. Endovascular obliteration of saphe­nous reux: A multicenter study. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35(6):1190–1196.
30. Rautio TT, Perala JM, Wiik HT, Juvonen TS, and Haukipuro KA. Endovenous obliteration with radio-frequency-resistive heating for greater saphenous vein insuf­ciency: A feasibility study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002;13(6):569–575.
31. Sybrandy JE and Wittens CH. Initial experiences in endovenous treatment of saphenous vein reux. J Vasc Surg. 2002;36(6):1207–1212.
*32. Almeida JI, Kaufman J, Göckeritz O, et al.
Radiofrequency endovenous ClosureFAST versus laser ablation for the treatment of great saphenous reux: A multicen­ter, single-blinded, randomized study (RECOVERY Study). J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20(6):752–759.
*33. Merchant RF and Pichot O; Closure
Study Group. Long-term outcomes of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration of saphenous reux as a treatment for supercial venous insufciency. J Vasc
Surg. 2005;42(3):502–509; discussion
509.
*34. ProebstleTM, Alm BJ, Göckeritz O, et al.
Five-year results from the prospective European multicentre cohort study on radiofrequency segmental thermal ablation for incompetent great saphenous veins. Br J Surg. 2015;102(3):212–218.
35. Calcagno D, Rossi JA, and Ha C. Effect of saphenous vein diameter on closure rate with ClosureFAST radiofre­quency catheter. J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;43(6):567–570.
•36. Mese B, Bozoglan O, Eroglu E, Erdem K, Acipayam M, Ekerbicer HC, Yasim A. A comparison of 1,470-nm endovenous laser ablation and radiofrequency abla­tion in the treatment of great saphenous veins 10 mm or more in size. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015;29(7):1368–72.
37. Health Quality Ontario. Endovascular radiofrequency ablation for varicose veins: An evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2011;11(1): 1–93.
38. Zuniga JM, Hingorani A, Ascher E, et al. Short-term outcome analysis of radiofre­quency ablation using ClosurePlus vs ClosureFast catheters in the treatment of incompetent great saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55(4):1048–1051.
39. Rasmussen LH, Lawaetz M, Bjoern L, Vennits B, Blemings A, and Eklöf 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(8):1079–1087.
40. ProebstleTM, Vago B, Alm J, Gockeritz O, Lebard C, and Pichot O. Treatment of the incompetent great saphenous vein by endovenous radiofrequency powered segmental thermal ablation: First clinical experience. J Vasc Surg. 2008;47(1): 151–156.
41. Shepherd AC, Gohel MS, Brown LC, Metcalfe MJ, Hamish M, and Davies AH. Randomized clinical trial of VNUS® ClosureFAST radiofrequency ablation versus laser for varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2010;97(6):810–818.
42. Hingorani AP, Ascher E, Markevich N, et al. Deep venous thrombosis after radiofre­quency ablation of greater saphenous vein: A word of caution. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40(3):500–504.
43. Creton D, Pichot O, Sessa C, and Proe-
44. van Rij AM, Chai J, Hill GB, and Christie
45. Pannone A, Di Girolamo A, Orrico M,
•46. Suarez LB, Alnahhal KI, Salehi PA, King
TM
; Closure Fast Europe Group.
bstle Radiofrequency-powered segmental thermal obliteration carried out with the ClosureFast procedure: Results at 1 year. Ann Vasc Surg. 2010;24(3):360–366.
RA. Incidence of deep vein thrombosis after varicose vein surgery. Br J Surg. 2004;91(12):1582–1585.
Mangialardi N. Outcome measures of in-ofce endovenous radiofrequency treatment of varicose vein feasibility. Dia­gnostics (Basel). 2023 Jan 16;13(2):327. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13020327.
EG, O’Donnell TF Jr, Iafrati MD. A sys­tematic review of routine post operative
screening duplex ultrasound after thermal and non-thermal endovenous ablation. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2023;11(1):193–200.e6.
47. Shari M, Mehdipour M, Bay C, Emrani F, and Shari J. Effect of anticoagulation on endothermal ablation of the great saphe­nous vein. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53(1): 147–149.
48. Corbett CR and Prakash V. Neovascu­larisation is not an innocent bystander in recurrence after great saphenous vein surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015;97(2):102–108.
49. Gad MA, Saber A, and Hokkam EN. Assessment of causes and patterns of recurrent varicose veins after surgery. N Am J Med Sci. 2012;4(1):45–48.
50 Kaspar S, Hadzi Nikolov D, Danek T,
Maixner R, and Havlicek K. Neovascu­larisation as a cause of recurrence after varicose veins operation. Rozhl Chir. 2006;85(8):399–403.
51. van Rij AM, Jones GT, Hill GB, and Jiang P. Neovascularization and recur­rent varicose veins: More histologic and ultrasound evidence. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40(2):296–302.
52. van Rij AM, Jiang P, Solomon C, Christie RA, and Hill GB. Recurrence after vari­cose vein surgery: A prospective long-term clinical study with duplex ultrasound scanning and air plethysmography. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38(5):935–943.
53. Jones L, Braithwaite BD, Selwyn D, Cooke S, and Earnshaw JJ. Neovascularisation is the principal cause of varicose vein recurrence: Results of a randomised trial of stripping the long saphenous vein. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1996;12(4): 442–445.
54. Dwerryhouse S, Davies B, Harradine K, and Earnshaw JJ. Stripping the long saphenous vein reduces the rate of reoperation for recurrent varicose veins: Five-year results of a randomized trial. J Vasc Surg. 1999;29(4):589–592.
55. Munn SR, Morton JB, Macbeth WA, and McLeish AR. To strip or not to strip the long saphenous vein? A varicose veins trial. Br J Surg. 1981;68(6):426–428.
56. Hammarsten J, Pedersen P, Cederlund CG, and Campanello M. Long saphenous vein saving surgery for varicose veins. A long-term follow-up. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1990;4(4):361–364.
57. Kostas T, Ioannou CV, Touloupakis E, et al. Recurrent varicose veins after surgery: A new appraisal of a common and com­plex problem in vascular surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004;27(3): 275–282.
58. Campbell WB, Vijay Kumar A, Collin TW, Allington KL, and Michaels JA; Randomised and economic analysis of conservative and therapeutic interventions for varicose veins Study. The outcome of varicose vein surgery at 10 years: Clinical ndings, symptoms and patient satisfaction. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2003;85(1):52–57.
59. Bunnell AP, Zaidi S, Eidson JL. 3rd, Bohannon WT, Atkins MD Jr, and Bush RL. Factors associated with saphenous vein recanalization after endothermal
References 435
https://t.me/med1917
ablation. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015;29(2):322–
327.
60. Goode SD, Chowdhury A, Crockett M, et al. Laser and radiofrequency ablation study (LARA study): A randomised study comparing radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation (810 nm). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40(2):246–253.
61. Braithwaite B, Hnatek L, Zierau U, et al. Radiofrequency-induced thermal therapy: Results of a European multicentre study of resistive ablation of incompetent truncal vari­cose veins. Phlebology. 2013;28(1):38–46.
62. Hamel-Desnos, C and Desnos, P. Ther­mal ablation of the saphenous veins by bipolar radiofrequency RFITT®. Results of a prospective study on 119 patients with 2 years of follow-up. Technical considerations. Phlebologie—Ann Vascu. 2015;68:21–29.
63. Holt D. and Lozano R. Saphenous ablation using EVRF radio frequency equipment and catheter CR45i. Initial experience in America. Presented at: XLIII Congress of Vascular Surgery, October 29–November 2, 2011, Aguascalientes. Accessed Feb 10,
2024.
64. Szabó A. Endovenous saphenous ablation using EVRF radiofrequency device and CR45i catheter. Experience of 313 cases. Hungary: Semmelweis University Buda­pest, 2014. Accessed Feb 10, 2024.
65. Bitargil M, Kılıç HE. Ablation of the great saphenous vein with F-care versus Clo­surefast endovenous radiofrequency the­rapy: Double-blinded prospective study. Phlebology. 2020 Sep;35(8):561–65.
66. Vulakh G, Segal R, Hingorani AP, Ascher E, Marks N. Early results with a new endovenous radiofrequency ablation catheter, venclose®. J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2022;56(8):743–745
67. Manuia E, Strover S, Istre J, Dietzek AM. Practical efcacy of a new radiofrequency ablation catheter: A rst experience, com­parative study. Plenary session Eastern Vascular Society 35th Annual Meeting, September 24, 2021, Charleston, SC
68. Almeida JI, Javier JJ, Mackay EG, Bautista C, Cher DJ, and ProebstleTM. Two-year follow-up of rst human use of cyanoacrylate adhesive for treatment of saphenous vein incompetence. Phlebology. 2015;30(6):397–404.
69. Morrison N, Gibson K, McEnroe S, et al. Randomized trial comparing cyanoacrylate embolization and radio-frequency ablation for incompetent great saphenous veins (VeClose). J Vasc Surg. 2015;61(4): 985–994.
70. van Eekeren RR, Boersma D, Elias S, et al. Endovenous mechanochemical ablation of great saphenous vein incompetence using the ClariVein device: A safety study. J Endovasc Ther. 2011;18(3):328–334.
71. Elias S. and Raines JK. Mechanochemical tumescentless endovenous ablation: Final results of the initial clinical trial. Phlebo­logy. 2012;27(2):67–72.
72. Holewijn S, van Eekeren RRJP, Vahl A, de Vries JPPM, Reijnen MMPJ; MARA­DONA study group. Two-year results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing Mechanochemical endovenous Ablation to RADiOfrequeNcy Ablation in the treatment of primary great saphenous vein incompetence (MARADONA trial). J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2019 May;7(3):364–374.
73. Boersma D, van Eekeren RR, Kelder HJ, et al. Mechanochemical endovenous abla­tion versus radio-frequency ablation in the treatment of primary small saphenous vein insufciency (MESSI trial): Study
protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014;15:421.
74. Gale SS, Lee JN, Walsh ME, Wojna­rowski DL, and Comerota AJ, and A. randomized, controlled trial of endove­nous thermal ablation using the 810-nm wavelength laser and the ClosurePLUS radiofrequency ablation methods for supercial venous insufciency of the great saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52(3):645–650.
75. Nordon IM, Hinchliffe RJ, Brar R, et al. A prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial of radiofrequency versus laser treatment of the great saphenous vein in patients with varicose veins. Ann Surg. 2011;254(6):876–881.
•76. Nesbitt C, Eifell RK, Coyne P, Badri H, Bhattacharya V, and Stansby G. Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgery for great saphenous vein varices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(10):CD005624.
77. 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.):2S–48S.
78. Gloviczki P, Lawrence PF, Wasan SM
et al. The 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society clinical practice guidelines for the management of varicose veins of the lower extremities. Part II: Endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Medicine. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2024 Jan;12(1):101670.
42
https://t.me/med1917
CHAPTER
43
https://t.me/med1917
Endovenous laser treatment
of superficial truncal veins
Alessandra Puggioni
43.1 INTRODUCTION
Percutaneous endovenous ablations have been developed as an alternative minimally invasive approach for the treat­ment of saphenous vein incompetence. It was the goal of these procedures to reduce anesthesia requirements, dis­comfort, and complications associated with traditional high ligation and stripping (HL/S), ultimately resulting in shorter recovery times.
Over two decades have passed since endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) were introduced as thermal ablation techniques. First introduced in 1998 by Spanish phlebologist Carlos Boné (1, 2), EVLA received FDA approval in 1999. A method of endovenous steam ablation (3) has also been described, but it is less common.
During EVLA thermal energy is released both into the blood and into the vein wall, while RFA catheters cause direct endothelial injury and collagen shrinkage within the veins. In terms of endothelial destruction and eventual brotic thrombosis, steam ablation produces similar results to the other techniques, with minimal damage to perive­nous tissue (3).
The use of tumescent local anesthesia is necessary for all types of thermal ablations; this alone may cause discom­fort and pain. As a result, numerous nonthermal ablation methods have been developed, such as mechanical occlu­sion chemically assisted (MOCA) ablation, cyanoacrylate embolization (CAE), and polidocanol endovenous micro­foam (PEM).
There has been an expansion of the indications for endovenous procedures, from treating the GSV only in the earlier reports to treating all supercial truncal veins to include the small saphenous vein (SSV), perforating veins (PVs), and the anterior and posterior accessory great saphe­nous veins (AAGSV and PAGSV). For symptomatic super­cial reux of all truncal veins or PV, endovenous ablations are now the treatment of choice over open surgery (4).
The focus of this chapter will be on EVLA of super­cial truncal veins; the treatment of PV is described in Chapter 46.
43.2 BACKGROUND
43.2.1 Laser basics
The use of laser technology in medicine has made tremen­dous advancements in recent years and continues to have a signicant impact on virtually every aspect of our lives. The word “laser” refers to light amplication by stim­ulated emission of radiation. It was Albert Einstein who rst proposed the theory of stimulated emission in 1917, which led to the discovery of the laser. The rst laser device was then created in 1960 by Theodore Maiman at Hughes Research Laboratories in Malibu, California, using syn­thetic ruby crystals as the lasing medium (5). A laser con­sists of three basic components: (1) the active medium (or laser gain medium), which is a solid, liquid, or gas material that absorbs external energy and raises some electrons into higher-energy states and emits photons thanks to its abil­ity to switch between energy levels; (2) an energy source, called the pumping device, that provides the necessary electrical or light (or another laser) energy for exciting the lasing medium; and (3) a resonant cavity, which is a system of mirrors placed around the gain medium that lters and amplies the light emitted from the excited atoms within the medium (Figure 43.1). One of the mirrors is a partial reec­tor (called an optical coupler), allowing some of the light to exit the laser device. The laser wavelength is represented by the symbol λ, with units of nm; it is primarily determined by the gain medium and the design of the resonant cavity. Lasers produce coherent light, where all photons have the same frequency, allowing them to create beams with very narrow wavelength spectrums. It is this characteristic that distinguishes lasers from other common sources of light, such as light bulbs, which emit photons in a wide range of wavelengths and directions, thus incoherent light. Watts (joules/second) are used to measure energy consumption (power). Energy consumption is determined by the product of power output and treatment duration (watt × seconds). Linear endovenous energy density (LEED) is dened as the amount of energy delivered over a dened distance within the treated vein, which is measured in joules/centimeter. It
DOI: 10.1201/9781003328971-48
437437
438 Chapter 43 Endovenous laser treatment of superficial truncal veins
https://t.me/med1917
43.1 Simplied scheme of a generic laser device with its main components.
is possible to apply laser energy in a continuous wave (CW) mode without interruption or in a pulsed mode (PM).
An example of solid diode lasers are the Nd:YAG lasers (neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet lasers). Diode lasers are most often used for EVLA, with a power energy usually set between 5 and 15 watts. During EVLA, laser bers emit infrared light with wavelengths between 810 and 1940 nm. The shorter wavelengths have a higher photon energy and better focal properties, while it is pos­sible to dispense a lower LEED at a lower power with the higher wavelength technology (6).
43.2.2 EVLA mechanism of action
During an EVLA treatment, the infrared light produced by the laser ber tip can be absorbed and/or scattered within various biological tissues to produce a variety of thermal effects. As each laser wavelength targets a different mole­cule, called the chromophore, different types of bers and generators can administer energy directly or indirectly to the vessel. A laser of wavelength 810 nm or 940 nm will be absorbed mostly by hemoglobin (7), while a laser of wave­length 1320 nm, 1470 nm, or 1940 nm will be absorbed only by water, and a laser of wavelength 980 nm will be absorbed by both. When the laser energy is absorbed by the intraluminal blood, the laser bers may act as heat pipes, causing indirect damage to the wall from the steam bub­bles generated by blood at boiling temperatures (7). Direct endothelial damage to the vein also may occur upon direct contact with the hot ber tip (8). The ultimate result of this process is transmural cell death, luminal contraction, thrombotic vessel occlusion, and end brosis (7, 8). There are still questions regarding whether the water-specic
systems act directly on the vessel wall or indirectly via intraluminal vapor bubbles as demonstrated by the 810- to 980-nm lasers.
The early bare-tipped bers caused more vessel perfora­tions when they came into contact with vessel walls (9). To decrease this type of vessel trauma during treatment, radial bers and bers jacketed with ceramic or metal have been introduced to provide a more homogeneous energy distri­bution and to decrease direct contact with the vein wall. The reduction of applied energy levels associated also with higher wavelengths may result in the reduction of postop­erative pain and bruising and possibly a faster recovery with similar outcomes.
43.3 PATIENT SELECTION
EVLA is a procedure that can be performed alone or in concomitance with the treatment of associated varicosities. The most common indication for the treatment of truncal veins is varicose veins stemming from axial venous reux in the GSV, SSV, AAGSV, and PAGSV in patients who are candidates for an intervention. A trial of compression treatment before the procedure is not supported by the sci­entic evidence and no longer considered necessary, unless based on patient preference or contraindications to any intervention are present for either a trial period or as den­itive management (4).
When selecting a patient as a potential candidate for the EVLA procedure, the operator’s experience with endovenous ablations represents an important factor in determining some of its relative contraindications (Box
43.1.a).
43.4 Technique 439
https://t.me/med1917
Patients with a history of previous stripping or endo­venous ablations, as well as large-diameter veins >15 mm or very supercial and/or tortuous veins, might represent a challenge, particularly at the beginning of the operator’s learning curve. With experience, even certain “difcult” veins can be safely approached with proper equipment and technique.
It must be pointed out that although EVLA is cur­rently considered one of the most cost-effective therapeu­tic options for varicose veins (10, 11), the laser equipment might be unavailable in certain health care systems, or the procedure might not be reimbursed by some insurance payers.
Exclusion criteria for EVLA are superimposed arterio­venous malformations, restricted mobility, acute infection, acute venous thrombosis in the target vein or in a deep vein, deep venous obstruction with inadequate venous return, and pregnancy (Box 43.1b).
43.4 TECHNIQUE
Endovenous procedures are mostly performed in the ambu­latory setting, and stab avulsion or foam sclerotherapy of varicose veins is preferably performed at the same time (4). Prophylactic antibiotics are not necessary in nearly all cases,
BOX 43.1 Contraindications
a) Relative contrain-
dications
• Large-diameter vein >15mm
• Aneurysmal vein
• Tortuous vein
• Scarred vein
• Shallow vein
• Limited availabil­ity of technology
b) Absolute contraindications
• Acute supercial venous thrombosis
• Acute deep venous throm­bosis
• Deep venous obstruction
• Restricted ambulation
• Acute infection
• Pregnancy
• Arteriovenous stula
as the procedure is classied as clean. Chemical prophylaxis should be customized after risk assessment for thrombotic events in patients with known risk factors (e.g., previous DVT, known thrombophilia, obesity), but is currently sup­ported by a low to very low level of evidence (12).
A procedure table with Trendelenburg and reverse Trendelenburg capabilities (Figure 43.2) is strongly recom­mended, since failure to empty the vein during treatment could result in low technical success rates and postoperative phlebitis. An ultrasound (US) machine with a sterile probe cover, antiseptic solution, and a sterile procedure package is required. The percutaneous venous access kit and pack­age generally include an introducer needle, a guidewire, sheaths and dilators, scalpel, and drapes. Most procedures are performed under local anesthesia only, using a tumes­cent inltration of saline with lidocaine (0.05%–0.25%) and epinephrine/bicarbonate injected by hand or by pump (Figure 43.3). Most of the time, sedation is not required.
Preprocedural US mapping is often used during EVLA to conrm vessel patency, mark possible tortuous seg­ments, and determine the best site for catheter placement. Varicose veins and tributaries can also be marked if treated concomitantly (Figure 43.4). In most cases, the GSV is accessed medially below or above the knee, while the SSV is accessed in the posterior mid-calf to reduce needle or thermal injury.
The preferred position for GSV and thigh accessory saphenous vein access is supine with the extremity exter­nally rotated. A pillow or foam wedge can be strategically positioned underneath the sterile drapes to make this posi­tion more comfortable. For SSV access, the prone position is most convenient; however, patient comfort or the need for multiple concurrent procedures may require a lateral or intermediate position.
Although EVLA of below-the-knee GSV has been shown to be effective (13) and is associated with low nerve injury risks, nonthermal endovenous ablation techniques have become increasingly popular for treating distal seg­ments, since there is no transmural transmission of energy.
It is important to consider the vein’s size, tortuosity, and location when choosing the entry site, as smaller, deeper,
43
43.2 An adjustable table. (A) In order to increase pressure in the vein and the likelihood of success, it is advisable to cannulate the
vein with the patient in reverse Trendelenburg. (B) To improve the anatomic success rate and to reduce postoperative phlebitis, the table should be tilted in Trendelenburg position prior to the application of tumescent solution.
440 Chapter 43 Endovenous laser treatment of superficial truncal veins
https://t.me/med1917
43.3 Equipment. (A) Laser generator. (B) Tumescent delivery pump. (C) Laser ber and (D) Jacketed ber tip with a bright red light
aiming beam.
(Courtesy of Paul Sos, MD, Optima Vein Care.)
43.4 Vein mapping. The GSV and branch varicosities have been marked, and the lower extremity externally rotated. A pillow was
positioned underneath the sterile drapes.
and more tortuous veins are more difcult to access. For successful access, it is recommended to keep the procedure room at a comfortable temperature and cannulate the vein while the patient is sitting partly or in reverse Trendelenburg to minimize vasospasm and increase pressure in the vein. A topical anesthetic cream may be applied approximately 20 minutes prior to the procedure, keeping in mind that topi­cal anesthetics are systemically absorbed and cause cumu­lative effects with the dose administered during tumescent
anesthesia. After injecting a small amount of local anes-
thetic, an introducer needle is used to access the target vein.
If vasospasm or a perivenous hematoma occur, it is pref-
erable to move to a more cephalad location rather than
repeat the puncture in the same area. An 0.035-inch guide-
wire is then advanced through the needle under US guid-
ance up to the SFJ, followed by the placement of a sheath.
The laser ber is inserted into the sheath and advanced to
the treatment site. It is possible to achieve sheathless laser
43.4 Technique 441
https://t.me/med1917
ber advancement through a smaller catheter in larger and straighter veins with a low risk of vessel perforation. The sheath is withdrawn to expose 2–3 cm of ber tip. The procedure table is tilted in Trendelenburg position, and tumescent solution is injected under US guidance into the perivenous space to surround the vein circumferentially. A typical volume of solution per vein is 5–10 mL/cm (Figure
43.5). The correct administration of perivenous tumescent solution is a critical component of these procedures, as it provides vasospasm and direct compression of the veins during treatment, and it creates a heat sink between the ber and surrounding structures when thermal energy is released. A maximum dose of 5 mg/kg without epinephrine and 7 mg/kg with epinephrine is recommended by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), although higher doses have been reported to be safe in plastic surgery literature (14). The catheter tip position is conrmed once again by US prior to treatment. When the laser ber is connected to the generator, a visible light at the tip can be seen through the skin, conrming the location of the tip. All persons in the room must wear laser safety goggles that are appropri­ate to the wavelength.
When treating the saphenous veins in the thigh, some physicians prefer to start treatment 2 cm below the SFJ, while others advocate increasing the ablation distance from 2 cm to 2.5 cm to decrease the incidence of endovenous
heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) with thrombus extension into a contiguous deep vein (15, 16). Other authors have recommended “ush EVLA” or “laser crossectomy” with start of treatment up to the level of the SFJ to reduce recur­rence rates, demonstrating a good safety prole with EHIT rates comparable to those reported in the literature (17). Upon activation of the laser, the ber and sheath are with­drawn. Depending on the device used, the aim is to achieve an LEED of at least 40–100 J/cm (18) at 5–15 W power— in continuous or pulsed mode—with a pullback rate of
0.75–2 mm/s. Several automated ber pullback devices have been developed, which can withdraw the laser ber at a rate of 0.5 or 1 mm/s. Several physicians use higher ener­gies for sealing proximal vein segments and lower energies farther distally where nerve injuries can occur. Once treat­ment is completed, it is very critical to ensure the bers and sheaths are all intact after removal from the vein.
EVLA treatment of accessory saphenous veins is car­ried out similarly to the GSV, except that these veins are usually not located within the saphenous fascia, and their length is usually shorter. It also often necessary to treat the associated tributaries simultaneously for maximum relief of symptoms.
When treating the most proximal part of the SSV, it is prudent to remain supercial up to the point where the vein angles down to perforate the deep fascia in the lower
43
43.5 Transverse intraoperative duplex ultrasound image of tumescent anesthesia solution injected into perivenous compartment
during endothermal ablation of truncal vein. (A) Laser ber. (B) Vein wall collapsed around ber with minimal residual lumen. (C) Cir­cumferential “halo” of tumescent anesthesia surrounding the vein and (D) Echogenic upper and lower components of the saphenous fascia, also known as the “Egyptian eye sign.”
442 Chapter 43 Endovenous laser treatment of superficial truncal veins
https://t.me/med1917
43.6 Longitudinal intraoperative duplex ultrasound image of the laser ber in the small saphenous vein (SSV). The proximal endpoint
of thermal ablation is above the level of the deep dive of the SSV in the popliteal fossa. popliteal fossa between the gastrocnemius heads.
(E) Popliteal artery.
part of the popliteal fossa between the heads of the gastroc­nemius muscle (Figure 43.6) given its anatomic variability and proximity to deeper neurovascular structures.
Typically, graduated compression hose is applied after the procedure to reduce swelling, pain, and bruising. How­ever, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on graduate compression therapy (19) found that prolonged compression therapy did not improve pain or quality of life, so prolonged use >2 days after endovenous ablation was not recommended.
43.5 FOLLOW-UP
Following endovenous thermal ablation, patients are often scheduled for a postoperative US within 72 hours to con­rm successful ablation and rule out proximal thrombus extension (EHIT). Previously, Kabnick (20) and Lawrence (21) proposed two distinct EHIT classications. Those sys­tems have now been combined into one four-tiered AVF/ SVS EHIT classication system (I, II, III, IV) with associ­ated surveillance and management guidelines (12).
Due to the low incidence of EHIT/deep venous throm­bosis (DVT) after EVLA as well as the negligible associated mortality (22), the necessity of a follow-up duplex exam­ination is not universally adopted due to concerns about its cost-effectiveness (23). The need for staged treatment
(C) Proximal SSV distal to the saphenopopliteal junction. (D) Popliteal vein and
for persistent or recurrent symptoms should be assessed after 3 months for patients who are unable to receive a combined EVLA plus tributary treatment during the index procedure (4).
43.6 RESULTS
43.6.1 Anatomic success
In most cases, the rst 1–2 cm of the vein beyond the SFJ or SPJ remains patent following EVLA. In early studies, occlusion rates were reported to be 95%–100% during the short term (1, 2, 24). Some veins never occlude, while oth­ers occlude on short-term follow-up but recanalize after some time, with most recanalizations occurring within 6–12 months (25).
For EVLA, anatomical success is often used as an out­come measure. Endovenous ablation reporting standards (26) dene this as successful ablation of the entire target vein segment on US, where there should be no ow in the treated vein from the groin (approximately within 3 cm of the CFV) down to the GSV above or below the knee. A partial occlusion involves the presence of a patent segment (either reuxing or nonreuxing) within the treated vein. It is necessary to document the length of the patent segment and the presence of reux.
(A) Laser ber. (B) Dep dive of SSV into the
43.6 Results 443
https://t.me/med1917
A variety of factors can affect anatomic occlusion rates. Higher wavelength lasers produce a lower LEED per case. Due to the wide range of devices and wavelengths available for EVLA, it is considered a nonstandardized procedure in terms of the different amounts of energy administered and the procedures employed. It has been recommended by some authors to aim for a LEED greater than 70 J/cm for optimal treatment (27).
Malskat et al. (28) sought to identify short- and long­term differences in the success rates of EVLA devices and techniques. They conducted a meta-analysis of 28 ran­domized controlled studies published between 2005 and 2017 covering 2829 patients treated with EVLA of the GSV. The success rates ranged from 77% to 100%, with a pooled success rate of 92% (95% CI 90%–94%). At univariable and multivariable meta-regression analyses, treatment success rates were not signicantly affected by wavelength, administered energy, or length of follow-up. In particular, there was no statistically signicant dif­ference between follow-up groups at 1 year, 1–3 years, and >3 years (93% [95% CI 87%–97%], 93% [95% CI 90%–95%], and 90% [95% CI 83%–94%], respectively, p = 0.82).
Currently available randomized clinical trials compar­ing RFA with EVLA have been consistently demonstrating comparable safety and effectiveness within the individual studies (p = NS), with occlusion rate ranges of approxi­mately 81%–95% and 95%–97 %, respectively, after 1 year of treatment (29–31).
In a 2022 systematic review by Alozai et al. (32) of eight studies including a total of 173 patients undergo­ing AAGSV ablation via EVLA, anatomic success rates ranged from 86.8% to 100% after a mean follow-up of
5.7 months. In a report by Aurshina et al. (33), 1 year after thermal ablation, accessory veins had almost twice the recurrence rate as compared with GSV and SSV, with no signicant differences between the type of endothermal technique utilized (EVLA vs RFA).
Based on a systematic review of the contemporary treatment of varicose veins according to existing clinical practice guidelines (34), EVLA demonstrated better ana­tomic closure rates at 1 year (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83–
0.97) compared to HL/S, but not at 5 years (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86–1.25). Bozkurt et al. (35) conducted a study to compare the efcacy of EVLA and CAC in 310 patients. At 1 month, EVLA was associated with a lower anatomic closure rate (87.91 vs 96.7, p = 0.001), but these results did not remain statistically signicant after 6 and 12 months (p = 0.127 and 0.138, respectively).
43.6.2 Clinical outcomes
During the past few years, both clinical practice and research have shifted their focus from technical success outcomes to physician- and patient-reported outcomes. Several clinical instruments, including Clinical–Etiology– Anatomy–Pathophysiology (CEAP) classication and Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), have been used to describe objective research ndings after venous proce­dures. A variety of RCTs have also evaluated EVLA’s suc­cess based on pain scores, return to daily activities, and disease-specic quality of life (QoL) measures like Aber-
deen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) and Quality of Life Questionnaire (CIVIQ-2).
Early randomized trials comparing patients undergoing EVLA vs HL/S (36, 37) showed a similar improvement in the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Symptom Score (AVVSS) at 3–6 months. Return to normal physical activity and to work was quicker after EVLA than HL/S in one of the studies (37) with a median of 2 (0–7) vs 7 (2–26) days (P = 0.001) and 4 (2–7) vs 17 (7–33) days, (P = 0.005), respectively, but not in another (36), with mean time to resume normal activity of 6.9 ± 7.0 days vs 7.7 ± 6.1 days and work of 7.0 ± 6.0 days vs 7.6 ± 4.9 days.
A randomized controlled study (CLASS study) com­pared EVLA, foam sclerotherapy, and HL/S for primary varicose veins and GSV/SSV reux in 11 UK centers. The study included 798 participants (10, 38). Clinical success measures included persistence of varicose veins, results of three QoL questionnaires (AVVQ, EQ-5D, and Short Form questionnaire-36 items [SF-36]), and VCSS. EVLA had a lower postoperative complication rate (1%) than foam (7%) or surgery (8%) (p < 0.001), and it was asso­ciated with quicker return to normal activities and an improved QOL than HL/S. The mental component of the SF-36 improved more with EVLA than with foam at 6 months (effect size 1.54, 95% CI 0.01–3.06; p = 0.048). At 6 months, there were no differences in VCSS between the groups, but EVLA was associated with fewer residual varicosities (p = 0.005), and surgical ablation rates were similar. After 5 years QoL from the AVVQ improved in all groups compared with baseline, but more after EVLA and HL/S than foam sclerotherapy (effect size for EVLA vs foam, –2.86; 95% CI, –4.49 to –1.22; P < 0.001), and anal­ysis of the GSV occlusion rate showed similar results after HL/S and EVLA (96% vs 89%), but signicantly lower after foam (51%; p = 0.00001).
A meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials by Kheirelseid et al. (39) examined the long-term outcomes of 1352 limbs treated with different types of procedures for venous reux. Limbs included in this analysis were treated with surgery in 511 cases, EVLA in 652, RFA in 68, and UGFS in 77. The differences in recurrence rates between EVLA and conventional surgery for GSV reux were not statistically signicant (36.6% vs 33.3%, respec­tively; pooled risk ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.76–2.37; p = 0.3) or between EVLA and RFA. EVLA limbs required reinter­vention in 23.6% of cases compared with 18% in the sur­gery group (pooled risk ratio, 1.42 [95% CI, 0.80–2.51]; p = 0.23). Five-year EVLA recanalization rates were higher than those after surgery (26.9% vs 14.7%; pooled risk ratio, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.20–4.30]; p = 0.01), but surgery had a higher rate of neovascularization (15.7% vs 4.9%; pooled risk ratio, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.07–0.82]; p = 0.02). Limitations of this study included the small sample size relative to each treatment and the heterogeneous mix of anatomical and clinical recurrences.
The adjunct of high ligation (HL) of the SFJ done in conjunction with EVLT was evaluated by Disselhoff et al. (40) and compared to EVLT without ligation. The study showed no difference in freedom from varicose vein groin recurrence at 5 years (79% of limbs in the EVLA only group [95% CI, 67%–92%] and 65% of limbs in the EVLA with HL group [95% CI, 51%–82%; p = 0.36]).
43