Search

Background: Endovenous procedures are commonly used for varicose vein treatment., Objectives: Types, functionality, and significance of endovenous devices., Methods: To describe the different endovenous devices, their mode of action, inherent risks and efficacy according to the literature., Results: Long-term data confirm that endovenous procedures are equally effective as open surgery. Postoperative pain is minimal and downtime shorter after catheter interventions., Conclusion: Catheter-based endovenous procedures increase the diversity of varicose vein treatment options. They are preferred by patients due to less pain and shorter downtime., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Endovenous thermal and non-thermal therapeutic approaches have become standard of care for the treatment of venous insufficiency. However, comparative studies on its use in the population of venous leg ulcer patients are scarce. The present study aimed at a comparison of the efficacy of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) for the treatment of venous leg ulcers (VUs). We retrospectively analyzed patient records of 68 patients with active VUs (C6 of the CEAP-classification), who underwent EVLA (n = 33) or UGFS (n = 35) between January 2001 and January 2021. In 68 patients, 97 venous segments (GSV: 43, SSV: 17, NSV: 37) were treated. Ulcer surface area at initial presentation did not differ significantly between both treatment groups (EVLA: 7.7 ± 10.7 vs. UGFS: 8.5 ± 16.3 cm 2 ; p = 0.73). No significant difference regarding patient characteristics was found, with the exception of age, as patients receiving UGFS treatment were significantly older (EVLA: 61 ± 17 vs. UGFS: 70 ± 14 years; p = 0.018). The rate of ulcer resolution was not significantly different between EVLA and UGFS groups (97.0% vs. 85.7%; p = 0.20). Also, the mean time to complete ulcer healing after endovenous intervention was comparable (EVLA: 59 ± 37 vs. UGFS: 63 ± 41 days; p = 0.68). However, the relapse rate was significantly higher for UGFS than for EVLA treated patients (31.4% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.002). Taken together, rates of ulcer resolution and ulcer healing time after endovenous intervention were comparable between both treatment modalities. Nevertheless, a significantly higher relapse rate was observed in UGFS treated patients., (© 2022 The Authors. Dermatologic Therapy published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background and Objective: One of the possible complications of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) is thrombus progression into the common femoral vein or popliteal vein with the potential risk of pulmonary embolism or stroke. We set out to investigate the effect of laser energy applied under standardized treatment conditions on biomarkers of platelet and endothelial activation and on the hemostatic system., Methods: Twenty patients with incompetence of the great saphenous vein were included in this prospective study. Blood samples of the iliofemoral and anticubital veins were collected before, during, and after EVLA. Plasma levels of soluble (s) P-selectin, soluble thrombomodulin (sTM), prothrombin fragment F1+2 (F1+2), and d-dimer were measured. (s) P-selectin and sTM were analyzed as surrogate markers of endothelial and platelet activation. F1+2 and d-dimer were monitored to quantify the degree of surgical trauma., Results: Whereas there was no immediate rise of (s) P-selectin and sTM plasma concentrations in iliofemoral or anticubital blood, plasma levels of F1+2 and d-dimer increased significantly after EVLA., Conclusion: Pulsed mode laser ablation with an 810-nm fiber does not induce measurable platelet and endothelium activation in the iliofemoral or systemic blood. Furthermore, the immediate surgical trauma associated with EVLA appears to be modest. The authors have indicated no significant interest with commercial supporters., (© 2011 by the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, Inc.)