Добавил:
Sekretar
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
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 supercial-deep venous
junction: A new post-treatment clinical
entity, classication and potential treatment strategies. Presented at: 18th Annual
Meeting of the American Venous Forum,
April 14–16, 2006, Miami, FL.
22. Suan 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.
Classication 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 reux: 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 reux. 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 reux: 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 insufciency: 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 reux. 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 reux: 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 reux as a treatment for
supercial venous insufciency. 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-ofce 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 efcacy 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 insufciency (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
supercial venous insufciency 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 supercial 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 supercial reux 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 supercial 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 signicant impact on virtually every aspect of our lives.
The word “laser” refers to light amplication 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
amplies the light emitted from the excited atoms within the
medium (Figure 43.1). One of the mirrors is a partial reector (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 dened as the
amount of energy delivered over a dened 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 Simplied 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-specic
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 reux
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 scientic 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 denitive 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 supercial and/or tortuous veins, might represent
a challenge, particularly at the beginning of the operator’s
learning curve. With experience, even certain “difcult”
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 supercial venous
thrombosis
• Acute deep venous thrombosis
• Deep venous obstruction
• Restricted ambulation
• Acute infection
• Pregnancy
• Arteriovenous stula
as the procedure is classied 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 inltration 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 conrm 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 difcult 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 conrmed 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, conrming 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 prole 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 supercial 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 conrm successful ablation and rule out proximal thrombus
extension (EHIT). Previously, Kabnick (20) and Lawrence
(21) proposed two distinct EHIT classications. Those systems have now been combined into one four-tiered AVF/
SVS EHIT classication 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) dene 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 reuxing or nonreuxing) within the treated vein. It
is necessary to document the length of the patent segment
and the presence of reux.
(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 signicantly affected by
wavelength, administered energy, or length of follow-up.
In particular, there was no statistically signicant 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 signicant 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 efcacy 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 signicant 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) classication 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-specic 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 reux 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 signicantly 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 reux. 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 reux
were not statistically signicant (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
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
