EFFICIENCY OF RADIO FREQUENCY ABLATION V.SAPHENA MAGNA LARGE DIAMETER IN OUTPATIENT CONDITIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11603/1811-2471.2022.v.i2.13144Keywords:
great saphenous vein (GSV), large diameter veins, radiofrequency ablation (RFA)Abstract
SUMMARY. There is no clear evidence of the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for treatment of large diameter varicose veins.
The aim – to provide clinical justification for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of a large diameter great saphenous vein in an outpatient setting.
Material and Methods. Data from 928 patients treated with RFA were analyzed. According to the CEAP International Classification of Venous Disorders, clinical categories were classified as C2 in 391 patients, C3 in 216 patients, C4 in 159 patients, C5 in 87 patients, and C6 in 75 patients. Following the sonographic examination, patients were divided into 2 groups: Group A (646 patients) – the diameter of the great saphenous vein (GSV) at the sapheno-femoral junction (SFJ) was ≤12mm and Group B – the diameter of the GSV at the SFJ was ≥12mm (282 patients).
Results. Upon ultrasonographic examination, the GSV diameter at the SFJ in Group A was found to be (7.8±2.3)mm, and in Group B, (14.1±2.6) mm, respectively. GSV diameter analysis showed that greater increases in clinical manifestations of chronic venous insufficiency (using CEAP classification system) resulted in an increase in the diameter GSV at the SFJ. Thus in 162 patients (17.5 %) with C5-C6 the average diameter was (14.3±3.52) mm. In these cases, 2–3 cycles of irradiation of the GSV pre-ostial segment were applied during the RFA. There was no difference in operative results between Group A and Group B.
Conclusions. According to clinical and functional results, there is no difference in RFA of veins with a diameter ≤12 mm and a diameter of ≥12 mm. Therefore, the diameter of the GSV at the SFJ should not be considered a constraint against treatment with RFA.
References
Lurie, F., Creton, D., & Eklof, B. (2003). Prospective randomized study of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration (closure procedure) versus ligation and stripping in a selected patient population (EVOLVeS Study). J. Vasc. Surg., 38, 207-214.
Nicolini, P. (2005). Closure Group. Treatment of primary varicose veins by endovenous obliteration with the VNUS closure system: results of a prospective multicentre study. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg., 29, 433-439.
Gloviczki, P., Comerota, A.J., & Dalsing, M.C. (2011). The care of patients with varicose veins and associated chronic venous diseases: clinical practice guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum, J. Vasc. Surg., 53(5), 2-48.
Calcagno, D., Rossi, J.A., & Ha, C. (2009). Effect of saphenous vein diameter on closure rate with ClosureFAST radiofrequency catheter. Vasc. Endovascular Surg., 43, 567-570.
Cardinal, M., Eisenbud, D.E., & Armstrong, D.G. (2009). Serial surgical debridement: a retrospective study on clinical outcomes in chronic lower extremity wounds. Wound Repair Regen., 17(3), 306-311.
Young Woo, Suh Min Kim, Daehwan Kim, Jung Kee Chung, & Mok Jung (2019). Outcome of ClosureFAST radiofrequency ablation for large-diameter incompetent great saphenous vein. Ann. Surg. Treat. Res., 96(6), 313-318.
Proebstle, T.M., & Vago, J. (2008). Treatment of the incompetent great saphenous vein by endovenous radiofrequency powered segmental thermal ablation: first clinical experience. J. Vasc. Surg., 47, 151-156.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Achievements of Clinical and Experimental Medicine
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
