Endovenous Lasering Versus Ambulatory Phlebectomy of Varicose Tributaries in Conjunction with Endovenous Laser Treatment of the Great or Small Saphenous Vein

Hyun Koo Kim, Hark Jei Kim, Jae Hoon Shim, Man Jong Baek, Young sang Sohn, Young Ho Choi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Endovenous laser treatment (EVLT) is a widely used minimally invasive alternative to stripping of varicose veins involving the great and small saphenous veins. We expanded the applications to tributary varicosities and compared EVLT alone with combined EVLT and ambulatory phlebectomy. The study included 132 patients (76 males, 56 females) who were treated with EVLT and ambulatory phlebectomy. In addition, 133 patients (67 males, 66 females) were treated only with EVLT. Perforating vein reflux was identified in 65 patients in the combination group (49.2%) and in 121 patients (91.0%) in the EVLT only group (p = 0.000). Postoperative complications and reoperation rates were compared between the two groups and the risk factors for reoperation analyzed. Ecchymosis (about 85%) and pain (>20%) were the major postoperative complications for both groups. There were no significant differences in the complications noted between the combination and EVLT only groups. During the follow-up period (25.6 ± 12.8 months, range 15.5-37.3, in combination group; 11.8 ± 8.2 months, range 1.3-18.5, in EVLT only group), residual tributary varicosities were noted in 12 patients (9.1%) in the combination group and in 11 (8.3%) in the EVLT only group (p = 0.813). For patients who had reflux in the perforating veins, the reoperation rate was significantly higher compared to the patients without reflux in the perforating veins in each group (p = 0.015 in combination group, p = 0.006 in EVLT only group). The presence of perforating reflux was a significant risk factor (odds ratio = 3.938, 95% confidence interval 1.05-14.78, p = 0.042). EVLT as the sole therapy for the management of combined saphenous and tributary varicose veins was found to be safe and effective. However, longer follow-up is needed for confirmation of these findings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)207-211
Number of pages5
JournalAnnals of Vascular Surgery
Volume23
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009 Mar 1

Fingerprint

Saphenous Vein
Lasers
Therapeutics
Reoperation
Veins
Varicose Veins
Ecchymosis
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Endovenous Lasering Versus Ambulatory Phlebectomy of Varicose Tributaries in Conjunction with Endovenous Laser Treatment of the Great or Small Saphenous Vein. / Kim, Hyun Koo ; Kim, Hark Jei; Shim, Jae Hoon; Baek, Man Jong; Sohn, Young sang; Choi, Young Ho.

In: Annals of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 23, No. 2, 01.03.2009, p. 207-211.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{93cf1358d2224a01aeeaa38f69c7e048,
title = "Endovenous Lasering Versus Ambulatory Phlebectomy of Varicose Tributaries in Conjunction with Endovenous Laser Treatment of the Great or Small Saphenous Vein",
abstract = "Endovenous laser treatment (EVLT) is a widely used minimally invasive alternative to stripping of varicose veins involving the great and small saphenous veins. We expanded the applications to tributary varicosities and compared EVLT alone with combined EVLT and ambulatory phlebectomy. The study included 132 patients (76 males, 56 females) who were treated with EVLT and ambulatory phlebectomy. In addition, 133 patients (67 males, 66 females) were treated only with EVLT. Perforating vein reflux was identified in 65 patients in the combination group (49.2{\%}) and in 121 patients (91.0{\%}) in the EVLT only group (p = 0.000). Postoperative complications and reoperation rates were compared between the two groups and the risk factors for reoperation analyzed. Ecchymosis (about 85{\%}) and pain (>20{\%}) were the major postoperative complications for both groups. There were no significant differences in the complications noted between the combination and EVLT only groups. During the follow-up period (25.6 ± 12.8 months, range 15.5-37.3, in combination group; 11.8 ± 8.2 months, range 1.3-18.5, in EVLT only group), residual tributary varicosities were noted in 12 patients (9.1{\%}) in the combination group and in 11 (8.3{\%}) in the EVLT only group (p = 0.813). For patients who had reflux in the perforating veins, the reoperation rate was significantly higher compared to the patients without reflux in the perforating veins in each group (p = 0.015 in combination group, p = 0.006 in EVLT only group). The presence of perforating reflux was a significant risk factor (odds ratio = 3.938, 95{\%} confidence interval 1.05-14.78, p = 0.042). EVLT as the sole therapy for the management of combined saphenous and tributary varicose veins was found to be safe and effective. However, longer follow-up is needed for confirmation of these findings.",
author = "Kim, {Hyun Koo} and Kim, {Hark Jei} and Shim, {Jae Hoon} and Baek, {Man Jong} and Sohn, {Young sang} and Choi, {Young Ho}",
year = "2009",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.avsg.2008.05.014",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "207--211",
journal = "Annals of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0890-5096",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endovenous Lasering Versus Ambulatory Phlebectomy of Varicose Tributaries in Conjunction with Endovenous Laser Treatment of the Great or Small Saphenous Vein

AU - Kim, Hyun Koo

AU - Kim, Hark Jei

AU - Shim, Jae Hoon

AU - Baek, Man Jong

AU - Sohn, Young sang

AU - Choi, Young Ho

PY - 2009/3/1

Y1 - 2009/3/1

N2 - Endovenous laser treatment (EVLT) is a widely used minimally invasive alternative to stripping of varicose veins involving the great and small saphenous veins. We expanded the applications to tributary varicosities and compared EVLT alone with combined EVLT and ambulatory phlebectomy. The study included 132 patients (76 males, 56 females) who were treated with EVLT and ambulatory phlebectomy. In addition, 133 patients (67 males, 66 females) were treated only with EVLT. Perforating vein reflux was identified in 65 patients in the combination group (49.2%) and in 121 patients (91.0%) in the EVLT only group (p = 0.000). Postoperative complications and reoperation rates were compared between the two groups and the risk factors for reoperation analyzed. Ecchymosis (about 85%) and pain (>20%) were the major postoperative complications for both groups. There were no significant differences in the complications noted between the combination and EVLT only groups. During the follow-up period (25.6 ± 12.8 months, range 15.5-37.3, in combination group; 11.8 ± 8.2 months, range 1.3-18.5, in EVLT only group), residual tributary varicosities were noted in 12 patients (9.1%) in the combination group and in 11 (8.3%) in the EVLT only group (p = 0.813). For patients who had reflux in the perforating veins, the reoperation rate was significantly higher compared to the patients without reflux in the perforating veins in each group (p = 0.015 in combination group, p = 0.006 in EVLT only group). The presence of perforating reflux was a significant risk factor (odds ratio = 3.938, 95% confidence interval 1.05-14.78, p = 0.042). EVLT as the sole therapy for the management of combined saphenous and tributary varicose veins was found to be safe and effective. However, longer follow-up is needed for confirmation of these findings.

AB - Endovenous laser treatment (EVLT) is a widely used minimally invasive alternative to stripping of varicose veins involving the great and small saphenous veins. We expanded the applications to tributary varicosities and compared EVLT alone with combined EVLT and ambulatory phlebectomy. The study included 132 patients (76 males, 56 females) who were treated with EVLT and ambulatory phlebectomy. In addition, 133 patients (67 males, 66 females) were treated only with EVLT. Perforating vein reflux was identified in 65 patients in the combination group (49.2%) and in 121 patients (91.0%) in the EVLT only group (p = 0.000). Postoperative complications and reoperation rates were compared between the two groups and the risk factors for reoperation analyzed. Ecchymosis (about 85%) and pain (>20%) were the major postoperative complications for both groups. There were no significant differences in the complications noted between the combination and EVLT only groups. During the follow-up period (25.6 ± 12.8 months, range 15.5-37.3, in combination group; 11.8 ± 8.2 months, range 1.3-18.5, in EVLT only group), residual tributary varicosities were noted in 12 patients (9.1%) in the combination group and in 11 (8.3%) in the EVLT only group (p = 0.813). For patients who had reflux in the perforating veins, the reoperation rate was significantly higher compared to the patients without reflux in the perforating veins in each group (p = 0.015 in combination group, p = 0.006 in EVLT only group). The presence of perforating reflux was a significant risk factor (odds ratio = 3.938, 95% confidence interval 1.05-14.78, p = 0.042). EVLT as the sole therapy for the management of combined saphenous and tributary varicose veins was found to be safe and effective. However, longer follow-up is needed for confirmation of these findings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=62249102895&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=62249102895&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.avsg.2008.05.014

DO - 10.1016/j.avsg.2008.05.014

M3 - Article

C2 - 18684588

AN - SCOPUS:62249102895

VL - 23

SP - 207

EP - 211

JO - Annals of Vascular Surgery

JF - Annals of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0890-5096

IS - 2

ER -