The LaVaCro-Study: Long-term results following saphenofemoral ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein

Summary

Background: Viewing the literature, there exist no sufficient data from large multi-center studies in order to evaluate the short and long-term results following high saphenofemoral ligation and stripping (SFL/S) of the great saphenous vein (GSV). On the contrary, comparing to the ample data from numerous studies and registries concerning the endovenous procedures, the data for SFL/S are quite heterogeneous and incoherent.

Method: In a multicenter study (12 centers), 841 patients (1 070 extremities) with primary varikosis of the GSV underwent a high saphenofemoral ligation and stripping operation according to a strictly standardized operation procedure. Primary endpoint is the haemodynamic significant recurrence at the saphenofemoral junction (SFJ), defined as a vein in the SFJ area with a diameter >5mm, connected with the femoral vein and showing reflux >0,5s. Secondary endpoints are recurrent veins in the SFJ area connected to the femoral vein smaller than 5 mm (ultrasonographic recurrence), new varicose veins according to the REVAS classification and surgical morbidity. The patients underwent clinical and colour duplex ultrasonography reexaminations after 7 to 14 days, 3 to 4 months and thereafter on a yearly basis.

Results: New varicose veins were found in 1,1 % after 3-4 months and 6,4 % after one year. Ultrasonographic recurrence in the SFJ occurred after 3 to 4 months in 0,53 % and after one year in 2,24 %. Only two patients (0,29 %) presented one year after surgery with a haemodynamic significant recurrence at the SFJ (diameter >5mm).

Conclusion: The recurrence rate of the standardized SFL/S one year after surgery is very low.

English version available at: www.phlebologieonline.de

Keywords

High ligation - groin recurrence - multicenter study

• Literatur

• 1 Balzer K. Venen. In: Carstensen G. editor. Intra- und postoperative Komplikationen. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer; 1983
• 2 Carradice D, Mekako AI, Mazari FA, Samuel N, Hatfield J, Chetter IC. Clinical and technical outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of endovenous laser ablation compared with conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg 2011; 98 (08) 1117-1123.
• 3 Carradice D, Mekako AI, Mazari FA, Samuel N, Hatfield J, Chetter IC. Randomized clinical trial of endovenous laser ablation compared with conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg 2011; 98 (04) 501-510.
• 4 Darwood RJ, Theivacumar N, Dellagrammaticas D, Mavor AI, Gough MJ. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation with surgery for the treatment of primary great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg 2008; 95 (03) 294-301.
• 5 De Maeseneer MG, Philipsen TE, Vandenbroeck PR, Lauwers PR, Hendriks JM, De Hert SG. et al. Closure of the Cribiform Fascia: An efficient anatomical barrier against postoperative neovascularisation at the saphenofemoral junction? A prospective Study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2007; 34: 361-366.
• 6 de Medeiros CA, Luccas GC. Comparison of endovenous treatment with an 810 nm laser versus conventional stripping of the great saphenous vein in patients with primary varicose veins. Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery 2005; 31 (12) 1685-1694. discussion 94
• 7 Eklof B, Rutherford RB, Bergan JJ, Carpentier PH, Gloviczki P, Kistner RL. et al. Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: consensus statement. Journal of vascular surgery : official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery (and) International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 2004; 40 (06) 1248-1252.
• 8 Eveillard M, Delbos V, Cambuzat D, Enon B, Picquet J, Joly-Guillou ML. Surgical-site infections following varicose vein surgery according to a continuous series of 408 interventions in a teaching hospital. Pathol Biol (Paris) 2011; 59 (03) e37-e42.
• 9 Fischer R, Linde N, Duff C, Jeanneret C, Chandler JG, Seeber P. Late recurrent saphenofemoral junction reflux after ligation and stripping of the greater saphenous vein. Journal of vascular surgery : official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery (and) International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 2001; 34 (02) 236-240.
• 10 Flessenkämper I, Stenger D, Hartmann M, Roll S. Endoluminale Lasertherapie vs. Crossektomie/Stripping bei Vena saphena magna-Varicosis. Klinische und sonographische Ergebnisse. Phlebologie 2013; 42 (01) 7-11.
• 11 Flessenkämper I, Stenger D, Hartmann M, Roll S. Saphenofemoraler Neoreflux nach Lasertherapie, Crossektomie/Stripping oder Crossektomie/Lasertherapie. Interimsergebnisse einer prospektiven randomisierten Multizenterstudie. Phlebologie 2012; 41 (06) 289-294.
• 12 Frings N, Tran van Thann P, Nelle A, Glowacki P. Unvermeidbares Rezidiv und Neoreflux nach korrekter Vena-saphena-magna-Crossektomie: Neovaskularisation?. Phlebologie 2003; 32 (04) 96-100.
• 13 Haas E, Burkhardt T, Maile N. Rezidivhäufigkeit durch Neoangiogenese nach modifizierter Krossektomie. Prospektiv-randomisierte, farbduplex-kontrollierte Studie. Phlebologie 2005; 34 (02) 101-104.
• 14 Helmig L, Stelzer G, Ehresmann U, Salzmann P. Injuries of the deep veins in varicose vein surgery. Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift für alle Gebiete der operativen Medizin 1983; 54 (02) 118-123.
• 15 Jones L, Braithwaite BD, Selwyn D, Cooke S, Earnshaw JJ. Neovascularisation is the principal cause of varicose vein recurrence: results of a randomised trial of stripping the long saphenous vein. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 1996; 12 (04) 442-445.
• 16 Kalteis M, Berger I, Messie-Werndl S, Pistrich R, Schimetta W, Polz W. et al. High ligation combined with stripping and endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein: early results of a randomized controlled study. Journal of vascular surgery : official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery (and) International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 2008; 47 (04) 822-829. discussion 9
• 17 Kluess HG, Noppeney T, Breu FX, Ehresmann U, Gerlach HE, Hermanns H- J. et al. Leitlinie zur Diagnostik und Therapie der Krampfadererkrankung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Phlebologie, der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gefäßchirurgie, des Berufsverbandes der Phlebologen e.V. und der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der niedergelassenen Gefäßchirurgen Deutschlands e.V. (ICD 10: I83.0, I83.1, I83.2, I83.9) Entwicklungsstufe S2. Phlebologie 2010; 39: 271-289.
• 18 Lurie F, Creton D, Eklof B, Kabnick LS, Kistner RL, Pichot O. et al. Prospective randomised study of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration (closure) versus ligation and vein stripping (EVOLVeS): two-year follow-up. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2005; 29 (01) 67-73.
• 19 Mendoza E, Amsler F. Durchmesser der Vena saphena magna in der Leiste und am Oberschenkel – handelt es sich um valide Parameter zur Erhebung der Pathologie der VSM?. Phlebologie 2010; 39 (Suppl. 05) A19
• 20 Mumme A. Kontrollierte Vergleichsstudien zur endovenösen Therapie der Varikosis. Ist die Stripping-Operation noch konkurrenzfähig?. Phlebologie 2012; 41 (02) 68-72.
• 21 Mumme A, Hummel T, Burger P, Frings N, Hartmann M, Broermann M. et al. Die Krossektomie ist erforderlich! Ergebnisse der Deutschen Leistenrezidivstudie. Phlebologie 2009; 38 (03) 99-102.
• 22 Noppeney T. Ergebnisse nach Radiofrequenzobliteration. Phlebologie 2010; 39 (02) 72-76.
• 23 Noppeney T, Nüllen H. Die Rezidivvarikose – was ist das?. Gefässchirurgie 2005; 10 (06) 424-427.
• 24 Nüllen H, Reese von Ohlen C. Ambulante Varizenchirurgie in der Praxis. In: Immig H, Schröder A. editors. Varizen, Poplitealaneurysmen. Darmstadt: Steinkopf 1995: 73-79.
• 25 Perälä J, Rautio T, Biancari F, Ohtonen P, Wiik H, Heikkinen T. et al. Radiofrequency endovenous obliteration versus stripping of the long saphenous vein in the management of primary varicose veins: 3-year outcome of a randomized study. Ann Vasc Surg 2005; 19 (05) 669-672.
• 26 Perrin M, Allaert FA. Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of the Recurrent Varicose Veins after Surgery (REVAS) classification. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2006; 32 (03) 326-332.
• 27 Perrin MR, Guex JJ, Ruckley CV, dePalma RG, Royle JP, Eklof B. et al. Recurrent varices after surgery (REVAS), a consensus document. REVAS group. Cardiovasc Surg 2000; 8 (04) 233-245.
• 28 Perrin MR, Labropoulos N, Leon Jr LR. Presentation of the patient with recurrent varices after surgery (REVAS). J Vasc Surg 2006; 43 (02) 327-34. discussion 34
• 29 Pronk P, Gauw SA, Mooij MC, Gaastra MT, Lawson JA, van Goethem AR. et al. Randomised controlled trial comparing sapheno-femoral ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein with endovenous laser ablation (980 nm) using local tumescent anaesthesia: one year results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2010; 40 (05) 649-656.
• 30 Rasmussen LH, Bjoern L, Lawaetz M, Blemings A, Lawaetz B, Eklof B. Randomized trial comparing endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein with high ligation and stripping in patients with varicose veins: short-term results. Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery (and) International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 2007; 46 (02) 308-315.
• 31 Rasmussen LH, Bjoern L, Lawaetz M, Lawaetz B, Blemings A, Eklof B. Randomised clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation with stripping of the great saphenous vein: clinical outcome and recurrence after 2 years. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2010; 39 (05) 630-635.
• 32 Rass K, Frings N, Glowacki P, Hamsch C, Gräber S, Vogt T. et al. Comparable Effectiveness of Endovenous Laser Ablation and High Ligation With Stripping of the Great Saphenous Vein. Two-Year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial (RELACS Study). Arch Dermatol 2012; 148 (01) 49-58.
• 33 Rautio T, Ohinmaa A, Perala J, Ohtonen P, Heikkinen T, Wiik H. et al. Endovenous obliteration versus conventional stripping operation in the treatment of primary varicose veins: a randomized controlled trial with comparison of the costs. Journal of vascular surgery : official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery (and) International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 2002; 35 (05) 958-965.
• 34 Stötter L, Schaf I, Bockelbrink A. Radiofrequency obliteration, invaginated or cryostripping: Which is the best tolerated treatment by the patient. Phlebologie 2005; 34 (01) 19-24.
• 35 Subramonia S, Lees T. Radiofrequency ablation vs conventional surgery for varicose veins – a comparison of treatment costs in a randomised trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2010; 39 (01) 104-11.
• 36 Subramonia S, Lees T. Randomized clinical trial of radiofrequency ablation or conventional high ligation and stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg 2010; 97 (03) 328-336.
• 37 van den Bos R, Arends L, Kockaert M, Neumann M, Nijsten T. Endovenous therapies of lower extremity varicosities: a meta-analysis. Journal of vascular surgery : official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery (and) International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 2009; 49 (01) 230-239.
• 38 van Rij AM, Jiang P, Solomon C, Christie RA, Hill GB. Recurrence after varicose vein surgery: a prospective long-term clinical study with duplex ultrasound scanning and air plethysmography. Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery (and) International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 2003; 38 (05) 935-943.
• 39 Winterborn RJ, Foy C, Earnshaw JJ. Causes of varicose vein recurrence: late results of a randomized controlled trial of stripping the long saphenous vein. Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery (and) International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 2004; 40 (04) 634-639.