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_3771_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
02.09.2026
Размер:
21 Мб
Скачать
70 Samuel Eric Wilson, et al.
Figure 8.4 Placement of the conical tip on the distal end of the vein stripper.This device is sutured firmly to
the saphenous vein prior to inversion stripping.
Figure 8.5 The great saphenous vein with associated vein stripper following removal.
A T shaped handle is present at the proximal end which is used to pull the venous strip­per. An assistant uses towels to compress the venous bed, and with steady traction the vein is removed (Figure8.5). Pressure is held on the elevated leg for 10 minutes, which helps avoid hematoma and minimize swelling postoperatively. Previously identified and marked acces­sory veins can be removed by avulsion with stab phlebectomies. Sterile gauze and compres­sion bandages are firmly wrapped around the leg beginning at the foot.
For the SSV, the vein is ligated flush to the SPJ and divided. We prefer to limit stripping of the SSV to the segment immediately caudal to the SPJ because of the proximity of the sural nerve to the SSV in the lower calf. In general, the venous anatomy of the SSV is less predictable and more variable than that of the GSV. Preoperative and intraoperative duplex ultrasound
High Ligation and Stripping of the Saphenous Veins 71
guidance allows clear anatomical delineation of the SPJ and associated venous branches and should be used routinely.
RESULTS FOLLOWING SAPHENOUS VEIN LIGATION AND STRIPPING
Good clinical evidence continues to demonstrate that saphenous HL/S is a safe, effective, and durable technique for the treatment of symptomatic reflux and varicose veins.10 Over the past decade, several randomized trials have compared this conventional surgical tech­nique with endovenous methods for truncal vein closure with favorable and comparable outcomes.
Brittenden and colleagues performed a randomized controlled trial in the United Kingdom that compared quality of life and cost-effectiveness in 595 patients following HL/S, laser ablation, and foam sclerotherapy.
11
At 5years, disease-specific quality of life was improved (and similar) following laser ablation and surgery compared with foam sclerotherapy. Laser ablation was found to be the most cost-effective option amongst the different treatments.
Another randomized study compared clinical outcomes at 10years following HL/S with
laser ablation.
12
The trial cohort consisted of 130 limbs (68 limbs treated with HL/S and 62 limbs with EVLA). The 10-year estimated freedom from groin recurrence was higher in the HL/S group compared with laser. The same trend was noted for clinically evident recurrence. There were no significant differences between quality of life and relief of venous symptoms between the two groups. Long-term cosmetic outcomes also favored the HL/S group.
Joh and colleagues compared short-term outcomes following saphenous HL/S and cya-
noacrylate closure (CAC).
13
The primary outcome studied was complete closure of the tar­get vein at 3 months. The study included 126 randomized subjects (63 with CAC and 63 with HL/S). At 3 months, all patients demonstrated complete vein closure in both groups. Postoperative pain was significantly lower in the CAC group. Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSS) and quality of life improved equally in both groups.
Clinical outcomes following HL/S for the SSV are also good when compared to non­thermal techniques. Nandhra and colleagues performed a randomized clinical trial compar­ing HL/S and laser ablation of the SSV.
14
Although elimination of axial reflux was superior following laser ablation, there were no significant differences in clinical recurrence, sensory disturbance, or quality of life at 2years between the two groups.
COMPLICATIONS OF HIGH LIGATION AND STRIPPING OF THE SAPHENOUS VEINS
The most immediate negative sequela of HL/S is postoperative pain. The current literature and our anecdotal clinical experience suggest that HL/S requires more anesthesia and is more painful compared with thermal ablation and CAC.15 Clinical recurrence of varicose veins may occur following both surgical and endovenous saphenous vein closure.
16
Postoperative seroma or lymphocele may develop at the groin wound if a lymph node has
been injured or divided.
17
When recognized, complete excision of the node will prevent leak-
age of serum and minimize postoperative collections.
In past years the stripper was often passed as far as the ankle level to allow removal of the entire vein, however this approach may injure the saphenous nerve, which is closely adjacent to the GSV in the lower leg.18 Many surgeons limit stripping from just below the knee to the
72 Samuel Eric Wilson, et al.
SFJ. Injuries to the saphenous and sural nerves nerve may occur following HL/S of the GSV and SSV, respectively. The literature suggests that the incidence of nerve injury in this setting is low and rarely results in long-term impairment or decreased quality of life.
18
As impossible as it may seem, there are patients who have had the superficial femoral artery
19
mistaken for a thick wall saphenous vein resulting in arterial injury.
The expected severe
consequences have ensued.
CONCLUSIONS
High ligation and stripping of the saphenous veins have a lesser role in therapy than endove­nous ablation in the contemporary era. Today they are indicated primarily for those who have a contraindication to percutaneous methods primarily because the morbidity is less, general anesthesia is not required, and recovery is faster. Specific indications, however, remain for surgical HL/S, and both short and long-term clinical outcomes are favorable when compared with less invasive techniques for patients with symptomatic varicose veins. Vascular surgeons and venous specialists should be familiar with its anatomical indications and technique.
REFERENCES
1. van den Bremer J, Moll FL. Historical overview of varicose vein surgery. Ann Vasc Surg. 2010;24:426–32.
2. Royle J, Somjen GM.Varicose veins: Hippocrates to jerry moore.ANZ J Surg. 2007;77:1120–27.
3. Cheatle T. The long saphenous vein: To strip or not to strip? Semin Vasc Surg 2005;18:10–14.
4. Crawford JM, Gasparis A, Almeida J, et al. A review of United States endovenous ablation practice trends from the Medicare data utilization and payment database. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphatic Disorders. 2019;7:471–79.
5. Garcia-Madrid C, Manrique OP, Gomez-Blasco F, et al. Update on endovenous radio-frequency closure ablation of varicose veins. Ann Vasc Surg. 2012;26:281–91.
6. Bountouroglu DG, Azzam M, Kakkos SK, et al. Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy com­bined with sapheno-femoral ligation compared to surgical treatment of varicose veins: Early results of a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006;31:93–100
7. Gloviczki P, Lawrence PF, Wasan SM, Meissner MH, Almeida J, Brown KR, etal. The 2022 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 I. Duplex scanning and treatment of superficial truncal reflux: Endorsed by the Society for Vas­cular Medicine and the International Union of Phlebology. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2023;11:231–36.e6.
8. Kemaloglu C. Saphenous vein diameter is a single risk factor for early recanalization after endo­thermal ablation of incompetent great saphenous vein. Vascular. 2019;27:537–41.
9. Lawrence PF, Chandra A, Wu M, Rigberg D, Derubertis B, Gelabert H, etal. Classification of proximal endovenous closure levels and treatment algorithm. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52:388–93.
10. Shahzad N, Elsherif M, Abaidat I, Brar R. Asystematic review and meta-analysis of random­ized controlled trials comparing thermal versus non-thermal endovenous ablation in superficial venous incompetence. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2023;66:687–95.
11. Brittenden J, Cooper D, Dimitrova M, Scotland G, Cotton SC, Elders A, etal. Five-year out­comes of a randomized trial of treatments for varicose veins. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:912–22.
12. Eggen CA, Alozai T, Pronk P, Mooij MC, Gaastra MTW, Unlu C, etal. Ten-year follow up of a randomized controlled trial comparing saphenofemoral ligation and stripping of the great
High Ligation and Stripping of the Saphenous Veins 73
saphenous vein with endovenous laser ablation (980 nm) using local tumescent anesthesia. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2022;10:646–53.e1.
13. Joh JH, Lee T, Byun SJ, Cho S, Park HS, Yun WS, etal. Amulticenter randomized controlled trial of cyanoacrylate closure and surgical stripping for incompetent great saphenous veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2022;10:353–59.
14. Nandhra S, El-Sheikha J, Carradice D, Wallace T, Souroullas P, Samuel N, etal. Arandomized clinical trial of endovenous laser ablation versus conventional surgery for small saphenous vari­cose veins. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:741–46.
15. Kanber EM, Cetin HK. Comparison of radiofrequency ablation and saphenous vein strip­ping for the treatment of recurrent lower extremity venous insufficiency. Vasc Endovasc SUrg. 2023;57:726–731.
16. Nesbitt C, Bedenis R, Bhattacharya V, Stansby G. Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus open surgery for great saphenous vein varices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(7):CD005624.
17. Dessalvi S, Villa G, Campisi CC, Boccardo F. Decreasing and preventing lymphatic-injury­related complications in patients undergoing venous surgery: Anew diagnostic and therapeutic protocol. Lymphology. 2018;51:57–65.
18. Morrison C, Dalsing MC. Signs and symptoms of saphenous nerve injury after greater saphe­nous vein stripping: Prevalence, severity, and relevance for modern practice. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38:886–90.
19. Marcucci G, Accrocca F, Antonelli R, Siani A. The management of arterial and venous injuries during saphenous vein surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2008;7:432–33.
Chapter 9

Ambulatory (Stab) Phlebectomy

William Duong and David Rigberg
THE ORIGIN OF PHLEBECTOMY
Varicose veins are a common condition managed by the vascular provider, affecting 23% of adults in the United States, with an estimated 22million women and 11million men between the ages of 40 and 80years old. veins are enlarged superficial veins that exist on the spectrum of chronic venous disease, alongside subdermal spider veins, telangiectasis, and reticular veins. By definition, varicose veins are dilated, tortuous, subcutaneous veins measuring greater than or equal to 3mm in diameter.2 Running in the superficial space above the saphenous fascia, these are tributaries of and ultimately drain into the greater saphenous vein.
The treatment of a venous varix by phlebotomy was first conceptualized by Hippocrates in 400 BC,4 by performing multiple punctures in the vein. However, it was Aulus Cornelius Celsus (25 BC–45 AD) who was first to perform a phlebectomy to treat a varicose vein in ancient Rome around 0 CE.5 Without the assistance of anesthesia, patients experienced great pain from the procedure, and the technique eventually fell out of favor.6 The idea was re­discovered in 1956 by Dr. Robert Muller, a Swedish surgeon, who developed and refined his own method, now referred to as Muller’s phlebectomy, or ambulatory/stab phlebectomy.
1
From Latin, “varicosus” means “dilated veins;” varicose
3
5
INDICATIONS
Ambulatory phlebectomy is directed toward the treatment of primary or secondary truncal and accessory varicose veins. These are often large and symptomatic, as they can cause sensa­tions of extremity heaviness, discomfort, or even pain.3 Areas that may be appropriate for the procedure of phlebectomy include the accessory saphenous veins of the thigh, pudendal veins of the groin, reticular varicose veins of the popliteal fossa, as well as the lateral portion of the thigh and leg, and the veins of the ankle and dorsum of the foot.7 Although not com­monly practiced, phlebectomy could be carried out for dilated veins in the upper extremity or even dilated venous networks within the face.7 Within the Society for Vascular Surgery and American Venous Forum clinical practice guidelines, there is strong recommendation with moderate quality of evidence for, “[recommending] ambulatory phlebectomy for treatment of varicose veins, performed with saphenous vein ablation, either during the same procedure or at a later stage. If general anesthesia is required for phlebectomy, we suggest concomitant saphenous ablation.”
CONTRAINDICATIONS
Although often a minor outpatient procedure, ambulatory phlebectomy should be avoided in select patients, particularly in patients with high risk for bleeding or with legs where wound healing would be prohibitive, including those with significant swelling and edema. Conversely, patients with hypercoagulable states should be approached cautiously with careful attention
8
DOI: 10.1201/9781003316626-11 74
Ambulatory (Stab) Phlebectomy 75
given to their medical management. Contraindications include extremities with active infec­tion or inflammation, such as cellulitis or dermatitis. Finally, as stab phlebectomy is most often pursued in an elective fashion, patients who are generally poor surgical candidates or have ongoing illness with active threat to life should not undergo this procedure.
4
PREPARATION FOR PROCEDURE
Preoperative marking of the patient is an important step to the ambulatory phlebectomy procedure. With the patient standing, the varicosities are marked with indelible ink as they are often more visible in this position (Figure9.1). Palpation can be helpful. This is best done with ambient lighting that falls tangentially over the varicosities being examined.6 Avein transilluminator can be utilized. The patient is, as well, useful in identifying the symptomatic veins that require attention.
MULLER’S TECHNIQUE
Once the patient has been marked, they are brought into the office procedure room or operat­ing room and positioned as needed. Although general anesthesia, monitored anesthesia care, or regional anesthesia are all acceptable options for anesthesia, local anesthesia is usually sufficient, with 0.5% or 1% lidocaine with or without epinephrine. It is important to note the amount of local anesthetic given, as for 1% lidocaine with epinephrine, the maximum recommended dosage is 7 mg/kg.
Hair removal is optional, as hair rarely interferes with the procedure. The operating leg is then elevated to minimize the venous bleeding and ecchymosis associated with the procedure. With the veins marked, and following infiltration of local anesthetic, a 1–3mm incision is made with an 11-scalpel adjacent to each varicosity. An 18 gauge needle can also be used to make the incision.9 We recommend beginning proximally and moving distally. When done in
Figure 9.1 Patient has been pre-operatively marked and is undergoing stab phlebectomy.
76 William Duong and David Rigberg
Figure 9.2 Acrochet hook (left) and a Halsted mosquito hemostat (right) is pictured.
the lower extremity, a longitudinal incision is often preferred; however transverse incisions in the groin, knee, and ankle may be more cosmetic as they align with the lines of Langer.
9
A hook instrument is then used to capture the varicosity, such as the Oesch-style hook or a crochet hook (Figure9.2). Once captured, the vein will appear pearly white6 (Figure9.3). Although smaller subdermal varicosities can simply be avulsed, longer and larger varicosities should be grasped with pointed clamp, such as a Halsted mosquito hemostat. Once the vein is doubly clamped, it is sharply divided between the two clamps. Each end is slowly and gently pulled from the adhering subcutaneous fat and slowly rolled onto the clamp in the direction of the vein (Figure9.3). Successive clamps can be applied to improve traction. Effort should be directed toward preventing premature avulsion of the vein; if this occurs, a separate inci­sion can be made proximally or distally to recapture the vein and maximize length of vein removed.9 It is important to remove as much of the varicosity as possible as this will reduce the potential inflammation that arises from the thrombosis of a retained segment.4 This should be repeated as many times as necessary, commonly requiring in excess of 20 or more phlebecto­mies.9 Following each phlebectomy, pressure can be held over the site to ensure hemostasis.
Closure of the skin can be completed with steri-strip bandages, or the incisions can simply be left open. Rarely, a single interrupted subcuticular stitch with absorbable suture such as 4–0 Monocryl is sufficient. A2×2 or 4×4 gauze can be used to cover the incision. The extrem­ity is then dressed with a compression dressing, either with an elastic bandage or a fitted compression hose with 20 to 30mmHg of compression. The compression should continue for at least 48hours before removal and followed by 6 weeks of compression during the day. Follow-up is arranged for the patient in 1 to 2 weeks with imaging as needed.
COMPLICATIONS
Although rare and often benign, the surgeon should be aware of potential complications from the procedure; divided into cutaneous, vascular, and neurological.10 Commonly, skin complications, such as dimpling or pigmentation can occur, however blistering or infection, while rare, can also
Ambulatory (Stab) Phlebectomy 77
Figure 9.3 Avein (pearly white) is pictured and gently grasped and pulled from the subcutaneous tissue.
occur. Bleeding can also occur resulting in ecchymosis or hematoma formation. Additionally, the improper application of the compressive elastic bandage can lead to pain and soft tissue injury if placed too tight. The local anesthetic may lead to an allergic reaction especially when given in large quantities such as with concomitant saphenous ablation. Local thrombophlebitis can occur from thrombosis of remnant varix. Very rarely, nerve injury to the saphenous, sural, or branches of the peroneal can occur, although the majority of nerve injuries are often sensory.
11
TRANSILLUMINATED POWERED PHLEBECTOMY
Transilluminated powered phlebectomy (TIPP) was developed in 1996 as the TriVex system utilizing three technologies to complete the dissection.12 Often using the same incision as the ablation of the greater saphenous vein, an endoscopic device is first used to transilluminate the subcutaneous varicosities and deliver tumescent anesthesia.
12
Aseparate device, an endo­scopic powered tissue dissector, is then delivered through an opposing incision, which con­tains a rotating blade which destroys and aspirates the varicose veins.12 Initial studies were promising, as early results demonstrated efficacy and required a decreased number of incisions and shorter operative time.13 However, further studies including a meta-analysis by Luebke et al found that despite the decreased number of incisions and operative time, there was an increased incidence of calf hematoma and higher pain scores with the TIPP compared to the conventional stab phlebectomy technique.
14,15
In actuality, the relative benefits and drawbacks of the TIPP have not been consistently demonstrated in future studies. Arandomized control trial by Aremu et al, comparing 100 limbs with conventional stab phlebectomy to 88 limbs with TIPP found that TIPP had significantly less incisions (5 vs. 29), but there was no differ­ence in operative time. In their study there was no difference in pain score, bruising, numbness, or overall satisfaction.
16
Aseparate randomized control trial from Chetter et al had similar
78 William Duong and David Rigberg
findings regarding operative time and number of incisions but found that bruising and pain were significantly higher in the TIPP groin, with a greater negative impact on quality of life and recovery time.
17
Given the mixed data, need for additional equipment, and learning curve, this has led to the recommendation that TIPP should be reserved in select cases, for example, in patients with a large number of varicosities, reoperations, or patients with obesity.
18
STAGING OF PHLEBECTOMY
Although ambulatory phlebectomy is often completed in conjunction with ablation of axial reflux, it does not necessarily need to be completed within the same operation. Treatment of axial reflux within the greater saphenous vein initially may decrease the pressure within the tributary veins and cause them to shrink, making them more appropriate for sclerotherapy and obviating the need for stab phlebectomy.
9
Thus, staging of the two procedures allows the practitioner to potentially decrease the extent of the procedure and potentially avoid additional ones.
19
On the other hand, combining the procedures leads to fewer office visits and less anesthetic at the cost of increased procedure time with potentially increased recov­ery time.
The literature is conflicted on the benefit of one approach over the other. Monahan studied 45 patients and 222 varicose veins in the treatment of greater saphenous vein insuf­ficiency with radiofrequency ablation without treating the varicose veins directly. He found that 88.7% of varicose veins decreased in size, with 28.4% of veins spontaneously resolved. Of the veins that resolved, 41.9% were above the knee and 25.6% were below the knee.
20
This was supported by a retrospective study by Welch, who reviewed 184 endovenous abla­tion procedures, and of the 155 patients who had total occlusion or partial patency of the greater saphenous vein, only 25.2% went on to receive subsequent stab phlebectomy for persistent symptomatic varicosities.
21
Similarly, Schanzer et al studied 86 lower extremi­ties with endovenous ablation alone and found that only 41.8% of extremities required a second stage procedure, with complete resolution of varicosities in 41.8% extremities.
22
On the other hand, other studies, such as Harlander-Locke et al, have found concomitant phlebectomy to be safe and effective for patients, particularly those with refluxing tributary veins >3mm.
23
Carradice et al was the first to complete a randomized control trial comparing stab phle­bectomy in the concomitant or staged format. They randomized 50 patients to endovenous laser therapy alone or endovenous laser therapy with concomitant ambulatory phlebec-
24
tomy.
While there was an increase in average procedure time, there was no difference in post-procedural pain. Furthermore, median Venous Clinical Severity Score at 3 months (0 vs. 2) was lower for the concomitant procedure as well as lower Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire scores at 6 weeks (7.9 vs. 13.5) and 3 months (2 vs. 9.6).
24
There were no dif-
ferences in these scores at 1year.
The AVULS study, Ambulatory Varicosity Avulsion Later or Synchronized, is the largest
randomized control trial to date and is by Lane et al.
25
With 101 recruited patients, they compared quality of life and clinical outcomes between staged and concomitant phlebec­tomies. 36% of the delayed group required further treatment compared with only 2% of the simultaneous group. Although both groups had a decrease in the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire, the simultaneous group had a greater decrease by 5.48 at 6 weeks, although no difference was seen at 6 or 12 months. Quality of life (using EuroQol 5 level) was also improved in the simultaneous group at 6 weeks (0.866 vs. 0.773), but this difference
Ambulatory (Stab) Phlebectomy 79
disappeared at future follow-ups. Interestingly, of the patients who had been recruited for the trial and refused participation, 95% cited wanting a single sitting treatment as their reason.
25
Saphenous ablation has also been performed with a concomitant TIPP, as studied by Obi
26
et al.
As expected, there was a greater improvement in Venous Clinical Severity Score with the ablation plus phlebectomy group compared to the ablation alone (3.8 vs. 3.2). Notably, the powered phlebectomy group did have a higher incidence of hematoma (7.8% vs. 1.2%) and superficial thrombosis (6.4% vs. 2.8%).
26
One concerning finding was a potentially increased rate of endovenous heat-induced throm­bosis in patients undergoing concomitant procedures. In Hicks et al’s retrospective study of 299 patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation with and without stab phlebectomy, endove­nous heat-induced thrombosis occurred more often in concomitant procedures (14% vs. 6%), with an odds ratio of 3.46 on multivariate analysis.27 Hicks hypothesized the increased pain from phlebectomy may have led to decreased activity level and thus increased risk of thrombo­sis. Worsened venous disease requiring the additional phlebectomy may also be contributive.
27
A meta-analysis of 15 studies comparing concomitant versus staged treatment of vari­cose veins by Aherne et al was completed in 2020. Overall disease severity, measured by Venous Clinical Severity Score, and quality of life, measured by the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire, both favored the concomitant group when measured at 3 months and between 3 and 12 months.
28
There was no difference in rates of deep venous thrombosis or complica-
tion rate inclusive of endovenous heat-induced thrombosis.
Ultimately, the decision to undergo a staged versus concomitant procedure is left to the practitioner. In the specific setting of general anesthesia, it may be favorable to complete them at the same time to reduce the dosage of anesthesia. However, with the advent of tumescence, local anesthesia, and when completed in an office or at an outpatient surgery center, a patient­centered discussion of risk, benefit, convenience, and patient preference may be prudent to optimize patient care.
CONCLUSIONS
The treatment of varicose veins has evolved over time to the refined technique of ambula­tory stab phlebectomy by Dr. Muller. It has become the gold standard for the treatment of this subset of chronic venous disease. Although there can be variability in anesthetic choice, procedural method, or even staging of the procedure, thorough discussion with the patient can ensure optimal outcomes.
REFERENCES
1. Piazza G. Varicose veins. Circulation. 2014;130(7):582–587. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.
113.008331
2. Hamdan A. Management of varicose veins and venous insufficiency. JAMA. 2012;308(24):2612–
2621. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.111352
3. Moore’s Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (9th ed.). Accessed February20, 2023. www.else­vier.com/books/moores-vascular-and-endovascular-surgery/moore/978-0-323-48011-6
4. Kabnick LS, Ombrellino M. Ambulatory phlebectomy. Semin Interv Radiol. 2005;22(3):218–
224. doi:10.1055/s-2005-921955
5. Ramelet AA, Weiss RA. Principles and technique of ambulatory phlebectomy. In: Advanced Techniques in Dermatologic Surgery. CRC Press, 2006.