Stratification of pelvic venous reflux in patients with pelvic varicose veins

Pelvic vein thrombosis in patients with pelvic venous disorders

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence of pelvic vein thrombosis (PVT) and outcomes of anticoagulant therapy for PVT in patients with pelvic venous disorders (PeVDs).

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 588 female patients with PeVDs underwent clinical examination followed by duplex ultrasound of the pelvic veins in 2021-2023. Patients with PVT were administered with anticoagulant therapy in an outpatient setting using low molecular weight heparins at a therapeutic dose.

RESULTS

PVT was detected in 7.6% of patients with PeVDs and was symptomatic in 28.8% of them. The majority of asymptomatic patients had thrombosis in only one of the parametrial veins (90.6%). Anticoagulant therapy resulted in the PVT symptoms relief in all patients within 10 days and recanalization of the pelvic veins in 1-3 months.

CONCLUSION

In our study, PVT was diagnosed in 7.6% of patients with PeVDs. Anticoagulant therapy is effective and safe in resolving PVT symptoms.

Effect of left renal vein compression stenosis on functional status of left kidney in patients with pelvic venous disorders

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effect of left renal vein (LRV) compression stenosis on the functional state of the left kidney in patients with pelvic venous disorders (PeVDs).

METHODS

We examined 162 female patients with PeVD and diagnosed LVR compression stenosis using duplex ultrasound (DUS) in 40. Patients with clinical manifestations of PeVD (n = 26) had symptoms and signs of pelvic venous congestion but without pain in the left flank of the abdomen, typical for nutcracker syndrome (NS). The remaining patients were asymptomatic (n = 14). The parameters measured with DUS included the angle of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) with the aorta, the LRV diameter (Dhilum/Dstenosis) ratio, and LRV velocity (Vstenosis/Vhilum) ratio. All the patients underwent laboratory testing (complete blood count, urinalysis, and biochemical blood testing) and dynamic renal scintigraphy to assess the secretory and evacuation functions of the renal tubular system.

RESULTS

The laboratory tests revealed no abnormalities, including no hematuria or proteinuria, in either group. The Dhilum/Dstenosis and Vstenosis/Vhilum ratios varied from 2.8 to 5.2 and from 2.9 to 8.3, respectively, and did not differ between the symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. All 40 patients with LRV compression stenosis were diagnosed with left gonadal vein reflux with a mean duration of 4.7 ± 0.6 seconds and 2.2 ± 0.6 seconds in the symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, respectively (P = .005). Eight patients had signs of NS on DUS, including five in the symptomatic group (SMA angle, 34.8° ± 2.7°; Dhilum/Dstenosis ratio, 5.2 ± 0.2; and Vstenosis/Vhilum ratio, 5.7 ± 0.4) and three in the asymptomatic group (SMA angle, 35° ± 2.8°; Dhilum/Dstenosis ratio, 5; and Vstenosis/Vhilum ratio, 5 ± 0.5). The groups did not differ significantly in the DUS parameters. Scintigraphy did not reveal any cases of secretory or evacuation dysfunction of the left kidney, including in the patients with DUS signs of NS. The maximum uptake time, elimination half-life, and effective renal plasma flow were within the normal ranges.

CONCLUSIONS

LRV compression stenosis without hematuria has no significant effects on the functional state of the left kidney, irrespective of the disease severity. In patients with PeVDs, dynamic renal scintigraphy provides an objective assessment of left kidney function.

A review of the pathophysiology and evidence-based management of varicoceles and pelvic congestion syndrome

Pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS) in females and varicoceles in males may be regarded as closely related conditions since the main pathophysiological cause for both processes is pelvic venous insufficiency. Varicoceles are more prevalent amongst sub-fertile males, with an approximate incidence of 15% in the general male population. PCS is commonly diagnosed amongst premenopausal multiparous women, representing one of the leading causes of chronic pelvic pain. Both conditions appear to be predominantly left-sided and are associated with oxidative stress and pro-inflammatory cascades with subsequent effects on fertility. Clinical examination and pelvic ultrasonography play an essential role in the assessment of varicoceles, PCS and chronic pelvic pain. Venography is generally considered as a gold-standard procedure for both conditions. There is still much debate on how these conditions should be managed. This review article provides a comparative analysis of the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of both PCS and varicoceles, their impact on fertility, as well as their clinical management.

Hemodynamic and neurobiological factors for the development of chronic pelvic pain in patients with pelvic venous disorder

OBJECTIVE

The study was aimed at the identification of hemodynamic and neurobiological factors for the development of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in patients with pelvic venous disorder (PeVD) using ultrasound, radionuclide, and enzyme immunoassay methods.

METHODS

This cohort study included 110 consecutive patients with PeVD and 20 healthy controls. Seventy patients with PeVD had symptoms (CPP in 100% of cases, discomfort in hypogastrium, dyspareunia, vulvar varices, and dysuria), and 40 were asymptomatic. Patients underwent clinical examination, duplex ultrasound study of the pelvic veins and lower extremities, and single-photon emission computed tomography of the pelvic veins with in vivo labeled red blood cells. The prevalence, duration, severity, and pattern of reflux in the pelvic veins, as well as the severity of pelvic venous congestion, were evaluated. Healthy controls underwent only clinical and duplex ultrasound examination. All 130 patients were assessed using enzyme immunoassays to determine plasma levels of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and substance P (SP).

RESULTS

Symptomatic patients with PeVD had a higher prevalence of reflux in the ovarian veins (OVs) than asymptomatic ones (45.7% vs 10%, respectively; P = .001) and a greater reflux duration (4.1 ± 1.7 seconds vs 1.4 ± 0.3 seconds; P = .002), although no differences in the OV diameter were found. Similar results were obtained when comparing the diameters of the parametrial veins (PVs) and the duration of reflux in them. Type II/III reflux (greater than 2 seconds) was identified in 41.4% of symptomatic and in only 5% of asymptomatic patients (P = .001). Among patients with CPP, 24.2% had a combined reflux in the OVs, PVs, and uterine veins, and 45.7% had a combined reflux in the OVs and PVs, whereas 90% of patients without CPP had only an isolated reflux in the PVs. The pelvic venous congestion was moderate or severe in 95.7% of patients with CPP and in only 15% patients without CPP (P = .001). In patients with PeVD, the presence of CPP was associated with higher levels of CGRP and SP compared with asymptomatic patients (CGRP: 0.48 ± 0.06 vs 0.19 ± 0.02 ng/mL, respectively, P = .001; SP: 0.38 ± 0.08 vs 0.13 ± 0.03 ng/mL, P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with PeVD, significant hemodynamic and neurobiological factors for the CPP development were found to be reflux in the pelvic veins greater than 2 seconds, involvement of several venous collectors, and increased plasma levels of CGRP and SP.

Current Best Practice in the Management of Varicose Veins

This article outlines the current best practice in the management of varicose veins. “Varicose veins” traditionally means bulging veins, usually seen on the legs, when standing. It is now a general term used to describe these bulging veins, and also underlying incompetent veins that reflux and cause the surface varicose veins. Importantly, “varicose veins” is often used for superficial venous reflux even in the absence of visible bulging veins. These can be simply called “hidden varicose veins”. Varicose veins usually deteriorate, progressing to discomfort, swollen ankles, skin damage, leg ulcers, superficial venous thrombosis and venous bleeds. Patients with varicose veins and symptoms or signs have a significant advantage in having treatment over conservative treatment with compression stockings or venotropic drugs. Small varicose veins or telangiectasia without symptoms or signs can be treated for cosmetic reasons. However, most have underlying venous reflux from saphenous, perforator or local “feeding veins” and so investigation with venous duplex should be mandatory before treatment. Best practice for investigating leg varicose veins is venous duplex ultrasound in the erect position, performed by a specialist trained in ultrasonography optimally not the doctor who performs the treatment. Pelvic vein reflux is best investigated with transvaginal duplex ultrasound (TVS), performed using the Holdstock-Harrison protocol. In men or women unable to have TVS, venography or cross-sectional imaging is needed. Best practice for treating truncal vein incompetence is endovenous thermal ablation. Increasing evidence suggests that significant incompetent perforating veins should be found and treated by thermal ablation using the transluminal occlusion of perforator (TRLOP) approach, and that incompetent pelvic veins refluxing into symptomatic varicose veins in the genital region or leg should be treated by coil embolisation. Bulging varicosities should be treated by phlebectomy at the time of truncal vein ablation. Monitoring and reporting outcomes is essential for doctors and patients; hence, participation in a venous registry should probably be mandatory.

Pelvic Pain in Reproductive Age: US Findings

Pelvic pain in reproductive age often represents a diagnostic challenge due to the variety of potential causes characterized by overlapping clinical symptoms, including gynecological and other disorders (e.g., entero-colic or urological). It is also necessary to determine if there is a possibility of pregnancy to rule out any related complications, such as ectopic pregnancy. Although ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are strongly integrated, the choice of which is the ideal diagnostic tool should be guided both by clinical suspicion (gynecological vs. non-gynecological cause) and by the risk ratio–benefit (ionizing radiation and instrumental costs), too. The didactic objective proposed by this review consists in the diagnosis of the cause and differential of pelvic pain in reproductive age by describing and critically analyzing the US diagnostic clues of the most frequent adnexal, uterine, and vascular causes.

Relationships of Pelvic Vein Diameter and Reflux with Clinical Manifestations of Pelvic Venous Disorder

The causes of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in patients with pelvic venous disorder (PeVD) are not completely understood. Various authors consider dilation of pelvic veins (PeVs) and pelvic venous reflux (PVR) as the main mechanisms underlying symptomatic forms of PeVD. The aim of this study was to assess relationships of pelvic vein dilation and PVR with clinical manifestations of PeVD. This non-randomized comparative cohort study included 80 female patients with PeVD who were allocated into two groups with symptomatic (n = 42) and asymptomatic (n = 38) forms of the disease. All patients underwent duplex scanning and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) of PeVs with in vivo labeled red blood cells (RBCs). The PeV diameters, the presence, duration and pattern of PVR in the pelvic veins, as well as the coefficient of pelvic venous congestion (C_PVC) were assessed. Two groups did not differ significantly in pelvic vein diameters (gonadal veins (GVs): 7.7 ± 1.3 vs. 8.5 ± 0.5 mm; parametrial veins (PVs): 9.8 ± 0.9 vs. 9.5 ± 0.9 mm; and uterine veins (UVs): 5.6 ± 0.2 vs. 5.5 ± 0.6 mm). Despite this, C_PVC was significantly higher in symptomatic versus asymptomatic patients (1.9 ± 0.4 vs. 0.7 ± 0.2, respectively; p = 0.008). Symptomatic patients had type II or III PVR, while asymptomatic patients had type I PVR. The reflux duration was found to be significantly greater in symptomatic versus asymptomatic patients (median and interquartile range: 4.0 [3.0; 5.0] vs. 1.0 [0; 2.0] s for GVs, p = 0.008; 4.0 [3.0; 5.0] vs. 1.1 [1.0; 2.0] s for PVs, p = 0.007; and 2.0 [2.0; 3.0] vs. 1.0 [1.0; 2.0] s for UVs, p = 0.04). Linear correlation analysis revealed a strong positive relationship (Pearson's r = 0.78; p = 0.007) of CPP with the PVR duration but not with vein diameter. The grade of PeV dilation may not be a determining factor in CPP development in patients with PeVD. The presence and duration of reflux in the pelvic veins were found to be predictors of the development of symptomatic PeVD.