Effect of junctional reflux on the venous clinical severity score in patients with insufficiency of the great saphenous vein (JURY study)

OBJECTIVE

Effective treatment options are available for chronic venous insufficiency associated with superficial venous reflux. Although many patients with C2 and C3 disease based on the CEAP (Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological) classification have combined great saphenous vein (GSV) and saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) reflux, some may not have concomitant SFJ reflux. Several payors have determined that symptom severity in patients without SFJ reflux does not warrant treatment. In patients planned for venous ablation, we tested whether Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSS) are equivalent in those with GSV reflux alone compared with those with both GSV and SFJ reflux.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted at 10 centers. Inclusion criteria were: candidate for endovenous ablation as determined by treating physician; 18 to 80 years of age; GSV reflux with or without SFJ reflux on ultrasound; and C2 or C3 disease. Exclusion criteria were prior deep vein thrombosis; prior vein ablation on the index limb; ilio-caval obstruction; and renal, hepatic, or heart failure requiring prior hospitalization. An a priori sample size was calculated. We used multiple linear regression (adjusted for patient characteristics) to compare differences in VCSS scores of the two groups at baseline, and to test whether scores were equivalent using a priori equivalence boundaries of +1 and -1. In secondary analyses, we tested differences in VCSS scores in patients with C2 and C3 disease separately.

RESULTS

A total of 352 patients were enrolled; 64.2% (n = 226) had SFJ reflux, and 35.8% (n = 126) did not. The two groups did not differ by major clinical characteristics. The mean age of the cohort was 53.9 ± 14.3 years; women comprised 74.2%; White patients 85.8%; and body mass index was 27.8 ± 6.1 kg/m2. The VCSS scores in patients with and without SFJ reflux were found to be equivalent; SFJ reflux was not a significant predictor of VCSS score; and mean VCSS scores did not differ significantly (6.4 vs 6.6, respectively, P = .40). In secondary subset analyses, VCSS scores were equivalent between C2 patients with and without SFJ reflux, and VCSS scores of C3 patients with SFJ reflux were lower than those without SFJ reflux.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptom severity is equivalent in patients with GSV reflux with or without SFJ reflux. The absence of SFJ reflux alone should not determine the treatment paradigm in patients with symptomatic chronic venous insufficiency. Patients with GSV reflux who meet clinical criteria for treatment should have equivalent treatment regardless of whether or not they have SFJ reflux.

Recurrence types 3 years after endovenous thermal ablation in insufficient saphenofemoral junctions

OBJECTIVE

Although many studies have demonstrated that endovenous therapies have comparable efficacy to crossectomy and stripping, few studies have been published regarding the classification and recurrence patterns of varicose veins after endovenous therapy. This study attempted to provide an objective scheme for the definition and classification of recurrence. Moreover, it describes the types and rates of recurrence after endovenous thermal ablation, as well as factors associated with recurrence.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study comprised a cohort of 449 patients with saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) insufficiency who underwent endoluminal varicose vein treatment for the first time in the limb between October 2013 and January 2015. The treatments were performed by a team of three experienced phlebologists. For endovenous laser ablation, Biolitec ELVeS was used with bare, radial or radial slim fibers. Radiofrequency ablation was performed with VNUS ClosureFAST (Medtronic, Deggendorf, Germany). The patients were consecutively scheduled for 3-year follow-up examinations. Detailed ultrasound findings were collected by two experienced phlebologists who classified the observed duplex ultrasound recurrence into different recurrence types.

RESULTS

Clinically relevant recurrence was found in only 5.1% of cases. Examining only the recanalizations requiring reintervention resulted in a recurrence rate of 2.6%. However, if every new varicose vein that occurred postoperatively was considered a recurrence, the resultant recurrence rate was almost 54%. Preliminarily, we defined a recurrence as newly developed varicose veins within the region of the SFJ or along the course of the former treated vein distal to the SFJ. According to this definition, we obtained a clinically relevant recurrence rate of 5.3%, thus indicating that neovascular vessels were the largest recurrence type (57.7% within the region of the SFJ and 9.9% distal to the SFJ), followed by recanalization (8.9% within the region of the SFJ and 9.4% distal to the SFJ) and a refluxing anterior accessory saphenous vein (7.5%). We also developed a modified classification of progression to better understand recurrence after treatment of chronic venous insufficiency; the scheme included method failure (recanalization), neovascularizations, and disease progression (refluxing untreated vessels and new varicose veins occurring outside the treated region). The diameter of the treated vein (P = .001) and the clinical class according to CEAP classification (P = .008) were significant predictors of recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoluminal therapies are efficient methods for the treatment of varicose veins, which result in low recurrence rates after 3 years. Several factors influence the development of recurrence. This study provides a practice-oriented classification and description of recurrence with clinical relevance, through making distinctions among technical error, progression of the underlying disease and actual recurrence.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the anatomic variants of the saphenofemoral junction

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review was to provide comprehensive data on the prevalence of variations of the saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) to prevent misidentification of the SFJ or the incomplete ligation of the tributaries of the great saphenous vein.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases through September 14, 2017. To be included in the meta-analysis, a study had to report prevalence data on the morphology of the SFJ or the presence of venous tributaries.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies (7433 legs) were included. The majority of studies were performed during varicose vein surgery (74.14%), with fewer studies by means of computed tomography venography and cadaveric dissection. The pooled prevalence estimate (PPE) for a duplication of the SFJ with a bifid junction was 9.6% (P = .001). The PPE for a duplication of the SFJ with two separate junctions was 1.7%. The PPE for ectasia of the SFJ was 2.3% in type 1, 1.2% in type 2, and 1.7% in type 3. The distribution of the PPE for the number of venous SFJ tributaries was approximately normal with a slight right skew; a higher rate was observed in the group with four venous tributaries to the SFJ.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis found high heterogeneity in the prevalence of SFJ anatomic variants and the number of venous SFJ tributaries. For this reason, it is highly recommended that a preoperative Doppler ultrasound assessment of the SFJ and great saphenous vein be performed.

The classic saphenofemoral junction and its anatomical variations

Background The intraoperative anatomy of the saphenofemoral junction can vary from the 'textbook' description of six independent proximal tributaries: three medial - superficial external pudendal, deep external pudendal and the posteromedial thigh branch - and three lateral - superficial epigastric, superficial circumflex iliac and the anterolateral thigh branch. Varicose veins can recur following inadequate initial open surgery with failure to identify, ligate and divide these tributaries. An appreciation of common anatomical variations could minimise recurrence rates following surgery. This study aimed to identify common anatomical variations within our patient cohort. Methods This prospective observational study documented diagrammatically the anatomy of saphenofemoral junction in a consecutive series of 172 patients undergoing unilateral, primary saphenofemoral junction ligation for symptomatic superficial venous insufficiency. Diagrams recorded the number of tributaries and their relationship to the saphenofemoral junction, the existence of bifid systems and the relationship of the external pudendal artery to the saphenofemoral junction. Results In sum, 110 women and 62 men with a mean age of 47.2 (IQR 21-77) years were studied. The median number of saphenofemoral junction tributaries was 4 (IQR 0-7). In 74 cases (43.0%), at least one tributary drained directly into the common femoral vein (IQR 0-4), commonly the deep external pudendal (91.9%). The anterolateral thigh branch was identified in 62 cases (35.8%) and the posteromedial thigh branch in 93 cases (53.8%). The external pudendal artery was identified in 150 cases (87.2%) and was superficial to the great saphenous vein in 36 cases (20.9%). Conclusions Significant variations exist in the saphenofemoral junction anatomy. Familiarity with anatomical saphenofemoral junction variations is imperative to ensure operative success and reduce recurrence. Thorough dissection of the common femoral vein is necessary not only to ensure all proximal tributaries are identified and ligated but also as a safety mechanism in preventing avulsion trauma of direct common femoral vein tributaries.