Endovenous Ablation vs. Surgical Stripping for Varicose Veins: Comparative Outcomes and Patient Selection

Meta Data

• Title: Endovenous Ablation vs. Surgical Stripping for Varicose Veins: Comparative Outcomes and Patient Selection
• Description: Comprehensive analysis comparing endovenous thermal ablation techniques with conventional surgical stripping for varicose veins, examining clinical outcomes, recovery profiles, and evidence-based patient selection criteria.
• Keywords: endovenous ablation, surgical stripping, varicose vein treatment comparison, endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, great saphenous vein, clinical outcomes varicose veins, minimally invasive vein treatment, varicose vein recurrence, varicose vein patient selection
• Author: Invamed Medical
• Date Published: May 21, 2025
• Category: Varicose Vein Treatment
• Primary Focus: Vascular Surgery
• Target Audience: Vascular Surgeons, Interventional Radiologists, Phlebologists
• Reading Time: 24 minutes

Tibbi İmtina

This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only for healthcare professionals. It does not constitute medical advice and should not be used as a substitute for professional medical judgment. The techniques and approaches described herein should only be performed by qualified medical professionals with appropriate training. Patient outcomes may vary, and treatment decisions should be made on an individual basis after thorough clinical assessment. Invamed does not assume responsibility for any treatment decisions made based on this content. Always consult appropriate guidelines, instructions for use, and regulatory approvals before utilizing any medical device.

Giriş

The management of varicose veins has undergone a paradigm shift over the past two decades, transitioning from conventional surgical approaches to minimally invasive endovenous techniques. This evolution has been driven by technological innovation, improved understanding of venous pathophysiology, and a growing emphasis on patient-centered outcomes including faster recovery, reduced pain, and improved cosmesis.

Varicose veins affect approximately 23% of adults worldwide, with prevalence increasing with age and demonstrating a female predominance. Beyond cosmetic concerns, varicose veins can cause significant morbidity including pain, edema, skin changes, and in advanced cases, venous ulceration. The economic burden is substantial, with direct medical costs estimated at $3 billion annually in the United States alone, compounded by indirect costs from reduced productivity and quality of life.

Historically, high ligation and stripping (HLS) of the great saphenous vein (GSV) represented the gold standard treatment, with documented efficacy but significant drawbacks including hospitalization, general anesthesia, surgical scarring, and prolonged recovery. The introduction of endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) techniques—including endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA)—has challenged this paradigm by offering comparable efficacy with reduced morbidity and faster return to normal activities.

This comprehensive analysis examines the comparative effectiveness of endovenous ablation versus surgical stripping for varicose veins, synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and long-term observational studies. By evaluating technical success, clinical outcomes, quality of life impacts, and cost-effectiveness, this review aims to provide clinicians with an evidence-based framework for treatment selection tailored to individual patient characteristics and preferences.

Procedural Techniques and Mechanisms of Action

Surgical Stripping: Technical Considerations

High ligation and stripping (HLS) involves surgical exposure of the saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) through a groin incision, ligation of the GSV flush with the common femoral vein, and removal of the incompetent vein segment using a stripper. The procedure has evolved significantly since its introduction by Babcock in 1907, with refinements including:

1. Invagination stripping: The vein is inverted upon itself during extraction, reducing trauma to surrounding tissues and potentially decreasing postoperative pain and bruising compared to conventional stripping.

2. PIN stripping (Perforate-Invaginate-strip): Small perforations are made along the vein before invagination, further reducing trauma and facilitating removal of larger veins.

3. Limited stripping: Rather than removing the entire GSV from groin to ankle, contemporary approaches typically strip only to the knee level, preserving the below-knee GSV for potential use as a bypass conduit and reducing the risk of saphenous nerve injury.

The mechanism of action is straightforward: physical removal of the incompetent vein eliminates reflux and the associated hemodynamic abnormalities. Concurrent phlebectomy of visible varicosities is typically performed through small stab incisions to address the superficial manifestations of venous insufficiency.

Key technical considerations include:
– Precise identification and high ligation of all tributaries at the SFJ to minimize recurrence
– Careful dissection to avoid femoral vein injury or lymphatic disruption
– Appropriate stripper selection based on vein diameter and quality
– Meticulous hemostasis to prevent hematoma formation

Endovenous Thermal Ablation: Principles and Variations

Endovenous thermal ablation techniques utilize heat to cause endothelial damage, collagen contraction, and ultimately fibrotic occlusion of the treated vein. The two predominant modalities—EVLA and RFA—differ in their energy delivery mechanisms but share common procedural elements:

1. Access: Ultrasound-guided percutaneous access to the target vein, typically at the lowest point of reflux

2. Mövqeləşdirmə: Advancement of the treatment device to a precise anatomical position (usually 2-3 cm distal to the SFJ for the GSV)

3. Tumescent anesthesia: Perivenous infiltration of dilute local anesthetic solution, which provides analgesia, compresses the vein around the treatment device, and serves as a heat sink protecting surrounding tissues

4. Energy delivery: Controlled application of thermal energy during device withdrawal

5. Compression: Post-procedure compression therapy to promote vein closure and reduce complications

Endovenous Laser Ablation (EVLA)

EVLA utilizes laser energy, typically at wavelengths of 810-1470 nm, delivered via an optical fiber. The mechanism of action varies by wavelength:

• Hemoglobin-targeting wavelengths (810-980 nm): Energy is preferentially absorbed by hemoglobin, causing blood to boil (“steam bubble theory”) and indirectly damaging the vein wall
• Water-targeting wavelengths (1320-1470 nm): Direct absorption by water in the vein wall leads to more homogeneous heating and potentially reduced post-procedure pain

Technical variations include:
– Bare-tip fibers: The original design, associated with vein wall perforation and higher post-procedure pain
– Jacket-tip fibers: Protective coating reduces direct contact with the vein wall
– Radial/tulip-tip fibers: Emit energy in a circumferential pattern for more uniform heating

Energy delivery is typically calibrated using linear endovenous energy density (LEED), measured in joules per centimeter, with optimal ranges of 60-100 J/cm depending on vein diameter and device specifications.

Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA)

RFA delivers high-frequency alternating current that generates resistive heating in tissues. Contemporary systems include:

• ClosureFast™: Segmental ablation with a 7 cm heating element maintained at 120°C for 20-second cycles
• ClosurePlus™: Continuous withdrawal with temperature-controlled energy delivery
• RFITT™ (Radiofrequency Induced Thermal Therapy): Bipolar electrode system with impedance-controlled energy delivery

The controlled temperature profile of RFA (typically 85-120°C) contrasts with the higher temperatures achieved with EVLA (potentially exceeding 1000°C at the fiber tip), which may explain differences in post-procedure pain and complications between the modalities.

Case Study 1: Technical Adaptation for Challenging Anatomy

A 62-year-old female presented with symptomatic GSV reflux and significant tortuosity in the mid-thigh segment. Initial attempts at advancing the laser fiber through the tortuous segment were unsuccessful despite various guidewire techniques.

Procedural adaptation:
– Ultrasound-guided access was established both below and above the tortuous segment
– A modified “rendezvous” technique was employed, with a snare device passed from the upper access point to capture a guidewire from below
– This allowed successful navigation of the laser fiber through the entire GSV
– Treatment was completed with standard parameters (1470 nm laser, 10W power, 70 J/cm LEED)

Six-month follow-up demonstrated complete occlusion of the treated segment with significant symptom improvement. This case illustrates the importance of technical adaptability when confronted with challenging venous anatomy that might otherwise require conversion to surgical stripping.

Comparative Effectiveness: Evidence Synthesis

Technical Success and Anatomical Outcomes

The primary measure of technical success for both surgical and endovenous approaches is elimination of the targeted reflux pathway. Anatomical outcomes are typically assessed by duplex ultrasound at various intervals post-procedure.

Short-term Occlusion Rates (0-3 months)

Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials demonstrate comparable short-term technical success between modalities:
– Surgical stripping: 95-98% successful elimination of GSV reflux
– EVLA: 94-98% occlusion rates
– RFA: 95-97% occlusion rates

These findings suggest that all three approaches effectively address the immediate hemodynamic abnormality with similar technical efficacy. However, differences emerge in the patterns of technical failure:
– Surgical failures typically result from tactical errors (e.g., incomplete ligation of tributaries) or anatomical variations
– EVLA failures are often associated with insufficient energy delivery or large vein diameter (>12 mm)
– RFA failures correlate with vein diameter, wall thickness, and energy delivery parameters

Medium-term Anatomical Success (1-3 years)

Sustained anatomical success at 1-3 years shows greater variation between techniques:
– Surgical stripping: 85-90% absence of GSV reflux (noting that the GSV is physically removed in the stripped segment)
– EVLA: 87-93% occlusion/absence of reflux
– RFA: 84-88% occlusion/absence of reflux

The RECOVERY trial, a multicenter RCT comparing RFA with surgical stripping, demonstrated comparable anatomical success at 2 years (87.2% vs. 86.9%, p=0.95). Similarly, the EVOLVES study showed non-inferiority of RFA to surgery at 3 years (85.6% vs. 84.2%, p=0.76).

Long-term Outcomes (>3 years)

Long-term data reveal important distinctions:
– Surgical stripping: 75-85% freedom from reflux at 5 years
– EVLA: 77-94% occlusion rates at 5 years (wavelength and energy-dependent)
– RFA: 75-92% occlusion rates at 5 years (device and technique-dependent)

The 5-year results of the RELACS trial comparing EVLA with surgical stripping demonstrated comparable anatomical success rates (89.9% vs. 85.4%, p=0.24), while the extended follow-up of the RECOVERY trial showed similar outcomes between RFA and surgery at 5 years (83.5% vs. 84.2%, p=0.87).

Notably, the mechanism of recurrence differs between techniques:
– Surgical recurrence typically occurs via neovascularization at the SFJ or development of incompetence in previously competent veins
– Endovenous recurrence more commonly results from recanalization of the treated vein segment or progression of disease in untreated veins

Clinical Outcomes and Symptom Improvement

While anatomical success provides an objective measure of technical efficacy, patient-centered clinical outcomes offer more relevant metrics for comparative effectiveness.

Symptom Resolution

Multiple randomized trials have assessed symptom improvement using validated instruments such as the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ):

• The REACTIV trial demonstrated comparable VCSS improvement at 2 years between surgery and EVLA (mean reduction: 4.6 vs. 4.9 points, p=0.32)
• The CLASS study showed similar AVVQ improvements at 6 months for surgery, EVLA, and RFA (mean reductions: 7.9, 8.2, and 8.4 points respectively, p=0.74)
• The RECOVERY trial reported equivalent symptom relief between RFA and surgery across all measured time points from 3 days to 2 years

Meta-analyses confirm no significant differences in medium to long-term symptom improvement between surgical and endovenous approaches, suggesting that the choice of technique should be guided by other factors such as recovery profile, complications, and patient preference.

Həyat keyfiyyətinə təsir

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessments using generic instruments (SF-36, EQ-5D) and disease-specific measures demonstrate significant improvements with all treatment modalities:

• The EVOLVES study showed comparable improvements in SF-36 physical component scores at 2 years between RFA and surgery (8.9 vs. 8.7 points, p=0.86)
• The RELACS trial reported similar EQ-5D utility scores at 5 years for EVLA and surgery (0.92 vs. 0.90, p=0.38)
• A systematic review of 28 studies found no significant differences in long-term HRQOL outcomes between surgical and endovenous approaches

However, important differences emerge in the early recovery period:
– Endovenous procedures demonstrate significantly better HRQOL scores during the first 4 weeks post-procedure
– Surgical patients typically require 2-4 additional weeks to achieve comparable HRQOL improvements
– These differences largely normalize by 3 months post-procedure

Return to Normal Activities

One of the most clinically relevant distinctions between surgical and endovenous approaches is the recovery timeline:

• Return to normal activities:
• Surgical stripping: 11.7 days (mean)
• EVLA: 6.9 days (mean)

• RFA: 4.8 days (mean)

• Return to work:

• Surgical stripping: 14.8 days (mean)
• EVLA: 7.6 days (mean)
• RFA: 5.2 days (mean)

These differences have significant implications for patient convenience, productivity, and indirect costs associated with treatment. The accelerated recovery with endovenous techniques represents a key advantage, particularly for working-age patients and those with caregiving responsibilities.

Case Study 2: Clinical Outcome Comparison in Bilateral Disease

A 58-year-old male with bilateral GSV reflux and similar disease severity (C3EpAsPr) in both legs underwent staged treatment with surgical stripping on the right leg and EVLA on the left leg (patient preference for comparative experience).

Comparative outcomes:
– Procedural time: 68 minutes (surgery) vs. 42 minutes (EVLA)
– Pain scores (0-10 scale):
– Day 1: 6.5 (surgery) vs. 4.0 (EVLA)
– Day 7: 4.0 (surgery) vs. 2.0 (EVLA)
– Day 14: 2.5 (surgery) vs. 0.5 (EVLA)
– Return to full activities: 18 days (surgery) vs. 8 days (EVLA)
– VCSS improvement at 6 months: 6 points (surgery) vs. 6 points (EVLA)
– Patient satisfaction (0-10 scale): 7 (surgery) vs. 9 (EVLA)

At 2-year follow-up, both legs demonstrated complete resolution of reflux with similar clinical improvement. The patient reported preference for the endovenous approach due to reduced pain and faster recovery, despite equivalent long-term outcomes.

Təhlükəsizlik Profili və Fəsadlar

Perioperative Complications

The safety profiles of surgical stripping and endovenous ablation differ significantly, particularly regarding perioperative complications:

Surgical Stripping Complications

1. Wound infection: Reported in 3-6% of cases, with higher rates associated with concurrent phlebectomies and groin incisions

2. Hematoma: Clinically significant hematomas occur in 7-17% of patients, occasionally requiring evacuation or prolonged drainage

3. Lymphatic complications: Lymphocele or lymphedema affects 1-3% of patients, with higher rates following extensive groin dissection

4. Venous thromboembolism (VTE): Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) occurs in 0.5-5% of cases, with pulmonary embolism (PE) reported in 0.1-0.8%

5. Major bleeding: Significant hemorrhage requiring transfusion or reoperation occurs in 0.3-1% of cases

6. Anesthesia-related complications: Associated with general or regional anesthesia requirements

Endovenous Ablation Complications

1. Ecchymosis and bruising: Common (60-80%) but typically mild and self-limiting

2. Superficial phlebitis: Affects 5-10% of patients, usually resolving with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and compression

3. Skin burns: Rare with proper tumescent anesthesia (0.1-0.5%)

4. Paresthesia: Reported in 3-8% of EVLA cases and 1-4% of RFA cases, typically temporary

5. Endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT): Extension of thrombus into the deep venous system occurs in 0.2-7.7% of cases, classified by proximity to the deep vein:

6. Class 1: Thrombus to SFJ/SPJ but not extending into deep vein
7. Class 2: Non-occlusive thrombus extending into deep vein
8. Class 3: Occlusive thrombus in deep vein

9. Class 4: Occlusive thrombus with propagation in deep vein

10. Venous thromboembolism: DVT occurs in 0.3-1.3% of cases, with PE reported in 0.1-0.3%

Comparative meta-analyses demonstrate significantly lower rates of wound complications, major bleeding, and overall adverse events with endovenous procedures compared to surgery. The RECOVERY trial reported a 67% reduction in adverse events with RFA versus surgery (4.8% vs. 14.5%, p<0.001), while the CLASS study found similar advantages for both EVLA and RFA over surgical approaches.

Nerve Injury and Sensory Disturbances

Nerve injury represents a specific concern with both surgical and endovenous approaches:

1. Saphenous nerve injury:
2. Surgical stripping: 7-40% incidence depending on extent of stripping (significantly higher with ankle-to-groin stripping)
3. EVLA: 1-5% with standard technique, higher with treatment below mid-calf

4. RFA: 0.5-3% with segmental ablation techniques

5. Sural nerve injury:

6. Surgical: 2-5% with small saphenous vein (SSV) stripping

7. Endovenous: 1-3% with SSV ablation

8. Common peroneal nerve injury:

9. Rare complication (<0.5%) with both approaches, typically associated with SSV interventions

The majority of nerve injuries are transient paresthesias that resolve within 3-12 months. Permanent sensory deficits are reported in 1-3% of surgical cases compared to 0.2-1% of endovenous procedures. Motor neuropathy is exceedingly rare with both approaches when proper technique is employed.

Long-term Complications and Sequelae

Several complications may manifest beyond the immediate perioperative period:

1. Residual/recurrent varicosities: Occur with similar frequency across techniques (20-35% at 5 years), though the underlying mechanisms differ:
2. Neovascularization more common after surgery (18-25%)

3. Recanalization more frequent following endovenous procedures (5-20%)

4. Hyperpigmentation:

5. Surgical: 10-30% along stripped vein tracts
6. EVLA: 5-20% along treated segments
7. RFA: 5-15% along treated segments

8. Typically resolves within 6-12 months

9. Telangiectatic matting:

10. Similar incidence across all modalities (10-15%)

11. More common in women and patients with hormonal influences

12. Chronic pain syndromes:

13. Surgical: 1-3% report persistent pain beyond 6 months
14. Endovenous: 0.5-2% report persistent pain beyond 6 months

The CLASS study’s 5-year follow-up data demonstrated no significant differences in long-term complications between surgical and endovenous approaches, suggesting that initial safety advantages of endovenous techniques primarily impact the perioperative and early recovery periods rather than long-term sequelae.

Case Study 3: Management of Endothermal Heat-Induced Thrombosis

A 42-year-old female with no prior VTE history underwent EVLA of the right GSV. Routine 1-week follow-up ultrasound revealed Class 2 EHIT with non-occlusive thrombus extending 1.5 cm into the common femoral vein.

Management approach:
– Therapeutic anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin followed by direct oral anticoagulant
– Compression therapy and ambulation
– Serial ultrasound monitoring at 1, 2, and 4 weeks
– Complete thrombus resolution by week 4 with no propagation
– Anticoagulation discontinued after 6 weeks
– No long-term sequelae at 1-year follow-up

This case illustrates the importance of post-procedure surveillance and prompt management of EHIT, a complication unique to endovenous thermal procedures that requires standardized detection and treatment protocols.

Cost-Effectiveness and Resource Utilization

Direct Procedural Costs

The economic comparison between surgical and endovenous approaches must consider multiple cost components:

1. Facility costs:
2. Surgical stripping: Typically requires operating room setting ($2,500-4,500)

3. Endovenous procedures: Often performed in office-based or ambulatory settings ($800-1,800)

4. Anesthesia costs:

5. Surgical: General or regional anesthesia ($700-1,500)

6. Endovenous: Tumescent local anesthesia ($150-300)

7. Equipment and disposables:

8. Surgical: Relatively low cost for reusable instruments ($200-400)
9. EVLA: Laser generator (capital equipment) plus single-use fibers ($600-1,200)

10. RFA: Generator (capital equipment) plus single-use catheters ($700-1,300)

11. Procedural time costs:

12. Surgical: Typically 60-90 minutes ($1,000-1,800)
13. Endovenous: Typically 30-60 minutes ($500-1,200)

Comprehensive cost analyses from multiple healthcare systems consistently demonstrate 20-30% lower direct procedural costs for endovenous procedures compared to surgical approaches, primarily due to differences in facility and anesthesia requirements.

Indirect and Total Costs

When broader economic impacts are considered, the cost advantage of endovenous approaches becomes more pronounced:

1. Recovery-related costs:
2. Lost productivity (work absenteeism): 7-10 days shorter with endovenous procedures
3. Caregiver time: Significantly reduced with faster recovery

4. Analgesic requirements: Lower with endovenous approaches

5. Fəsadlarla bağlı xərclər:

6. Wound care visits: Higher with surgical approaches
7. Antibiotic prescriptions: More frequent following surgery

8. Additional interventions: Similar between approaches

9. Long-term costs:

10. Recurrence-related interventions: Comparable between techniques
11. Surveillance requirements: Similar ultrasound follow-up needs

The CLASS study’s economic analysis demonstrated mean cost savings of $1,250-2,500 per patient with endovenous procedures compared to surgery when all direct and indirect costs were considered. Importantly, these analyses were consistent across various healthcare systems despite differences in reimbursement structures.

Quality-Adjusted Life Years and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness

Cost-utility analyses using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) provide the most comprehensive economic assessment:

1. Short-term QALY differences:
2. First 3 months: Endovenous procedures demonstrate 0.02-0.04 additional QALYs

3. Primarily driven by faster recovery and fewer complications

4. Long-term QALY equivalence:

5. Beyond 1 year: No significant differences in QALYs between approaches

6. Reflects similar long-term efficacy and complication profiles

7. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs):

8. Endovenous vs. surgical: Dominant (lower cost, equal or better outcomes)
9. EVLA vs. RFA: Generally equivalent with minor variations based on specific devices

The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines concluded that endovenous thermal ablation represents the most cost-effective first-line treatment for truncal varicose veins, with an ICER well below conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Patient Selection and Individualized Approach

Anatomical Considerations

Specific anatomical factors influence the suitability of different treatment approaches:

1. Vein diameter:
2. GSV >12 mm: Surgical stripping may offer advantages due to challenges with complete endovenous ablation of very large veins

3. GSV <3 mm: Endovenous approaches may be technically challenging due to difficult cannulation and risk of perforation

4. Vein tortuosity:

5. Significant tortuosity: Surgical approaches may be preferred when endovenous device advancement is technically limited

6. Mild-moderate tortuosity: Navigable with hydrophilic guidewires and appropriate endovenous techniques

7. Saphenofemoral junction anatomy:

8. Large tributaries at SFJ: Surgical ligation may better address complex tributary patterns
9. Aneurysmal SFJ: May favor surgical approach for definitive management

10. Standard anatomy: Equally suitable for all approaches

11. Vein depth and location:

12. Very superficial GSV (<5 mm from skin): Higher risk of thermal skin injury with endovenous approaches

13. Duplicate or accessory saphenous systems: May require combination approaches

14. Previous interventions:

15. Recurrence after surgery: Endovenous approaches typically preferred due to scarring and altered anatomy
16. Recurrence after endovenous ablation: Alternative endovenous modality or surgical approach based on recanalization pattern

Patient Factors and Comorbidities

Individual patient characteristics significantly impact treatment selection:

1. Age and mobility:
2. Elderly or mobility-impaired: Endovenous approaches minimize recovery limitations

3. Young, active patients: Benefit from faster return to activities with endovenous techniques

4. Piylənmə:

5. BMI >35: Endovenous approaches avoid wound complications associated with surgical incisions in obese patients

6. Challenges with tumescent anesthesia delivery may occur in extremely obese patients

7. Anticoagulation:

8. Therapeutic anticoagulation: Endovenous approaches carry lower bleeding risk

9. History of VTE: Individualized risk assessment required for all modalities

10. Comorbidities:

11. Cardiovascular/pulmonary disease: Endovenous with local tumescent preferred over general anesthesia
12. Immunocompromise: Lower infection risk with endovenous approaches

13. Peripheral arterial disease: Careful assessment required for all techniques

14. Skin integrity:

15. Active venous ulceration: Both approaches effective when combined with appropriate wound care
16. Lipodermatosclerosis: Endovenous approaches avoid incisions in compromised tissue

Disease Severity and Classification

The CEAP classification (Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, Pathophysiology) provides a framework for treatment selection:

1. C2 (uncomplicated varicose veins):
2. All approaches equally effective

3. Patient preference and recovery considerations often guide selection

4. C3 (edema):

5. All approaches demonstrate similar edema reduction

6. Concomitant perforator incompetence may influence technique selection

7. C4 (skin changes):

8. Both approaches effective for lipodermatosclerosis and pigmentation

9. Endovenous may offer advantages for minimizing wound complications in compromised skin

10. C5-C6 (healed/active ulceration):

11. Meta-analyses show comparable ulcer healing rates between approaches

12. Endovenous approaches facilitate earlier ambulation, potentially beneficial for ulcer healing

13. Recurrent disease:

14. Pattern of recurrence (neovascularization vs. recanalization) guides approach
15. Duplex mapping critical for planning targeted intervention

Patient Preferences and Shared Decision-Making

Patient values and preferences should be central to treatment selection:

1. Recovery priorities:
2. Emphasis on minimal downtime: Favors endovenous approaches

3. Concern about long-term recurrence: Balanced discussion of recurrence mechanisms

4. Anesthesia preferences:

5. Desire to avoid general anesthesia: Endovenous with tumescent local anesthesia

6. Anxiety about procedural awareness: Surgical with general anesthesia may be preferred

7. Risk tolerance:

8. Concern about nerve injury: RFA may offer lowest paresthesia risk

9. Concern about DVT: Similar low risk with all contemporary approaches

10. Xərc mülahizələri:

11. Out-of-pocket expenses: Often lower with endovenous approaches

12. Insurance coverage: Varies by healthcare system and policy

13. Cosmetic expectations:

14. Concern about scars: Endovenous approaches minimize scarring
15. Expectations for immediate visible improvement: Concurrent phlebectomy considerations

Decision Algorithm for Individualized Approach

A structured algorithm can guide treatment selection:

1. Initial assessment:
2. Comprehensive history and physical examination
3. Duplex ultrasound mapping of reflux patterns

4. CEAP classification and venous severity scoring

5. Technical feasibility evaluation:

6. Vein diameter, tortuosity, and anatomical variations
7. Access site options and treatment length

8. Contraindications to specific approaches

9. Patient-specific considerations:

10. Comorbidities and risk factors
11. Activity requirements and recovery constraints

12. Previous venous interventions

13. Shared decision-making discussion:

14. Presentation of suitable options with benefits and limitations
15. Consideration of patient preferences and priorities

16. Documentation of decision process

17. Procedural planning:

18. Optimization of selected approach
19. Consideration of adjunctive procedures (phlebectomy, sclerotherapy)
20. Appropriate setting and anesthesia arrangements

This systematic approach ensures that treatment selection is individualized based on both clinical and patient-centered factors, rather than provider bias or limited availability of specific techniques.

Case Study 4: Individualized Treatment Selection

A 68-year-old male with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requiring home oxygen presented with symptomatic GSV reflux and active venous ulceration (C6EpAsPr). Duplex ultrasound demonstrated reflux from the SFJ to ankle with a maximum GSV diameter of 14 mm.

Decision-making process:
– Pulmonology consultation deemed patient high-risk for general anesthesia
– Large vein diameter presented challenges for complete endovenous ablation
– Active ulceration and impaired mobility favored minimally invasive approach
– Patient prioritized ulcer healing over all other considerations

The selected approach involved:
– RFA of the GSV under tumescent anesthesia with conscious sedation
– Treatment performed in segments with increased energy delivery parameters
– Staged ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for below-knee tributaries
– Comprehensive compression and wound care protocol

Six-month outcomes included complete ulcer healing, significant symptom improvement, and 90% occlusion of the treated GSV. This case illustrates how individualized treatment selection can navigate competing considerations to optimize outcomes in complex patients.

Gələcək istiqamətlər və inkişaf edən texnologiyalar

Non-thermal, Non-tumescent Techniques

Recent innovations aim to eliminate the need for both thermal energy and tumescent anesthesia:

1. Mechanochemical ablation (MOCA):
2. Combines mechanical endothelial damage with liquid sclerosant
3. Eliminates thermal injury risk and tumescent requirement
4. Early studies show promising efficacy (85-92% occlusion at 1 year)

5. Potential advantages for very superficial veins and heat-sensitive structures

6. Cyanoacrylate closure:

7. Utilizes medical adhesive to achieve immediate vein closure
8. Eliminates need for tumescent anesthesia and compression therapy
9. Three-year data shows 94.4% occlusion rates

10. Higher material costs partially offset by procedural efficiencies

11. Endovenous microwave ablation:

12. Novel thermal technology with potential for more uniform heating
13. May reduce pain and bruising compared to laser and radiofrequency
14. Limited long-term data currently available

These emerging options may further refine the risk-benefit profile of endovenous interventions, particularly for patients with contraindications to thermal ablation or tumescent anesthesia.

Hybrid Approaches and Tailored Protocols

Contemporary practice increasingly employs combination strategies:

1. LASER and HOOK technique:
2. Combines limited surgical dissection at the SFJ with endovenous ablation
3. Addresses complex tributary patterns while maintaining minimally invasive benefits

4. Particularly valuable for recurrent disease after prior intervention

5. Truncal ablation with concurrent phlebectomy:

6. Single-session approach addressing both hemodynamic and cosmetic components
7. Improves early cosmetic outcomes compared to staged procedures

8. May increase procedural time and recovery period

9. Segmental approach to complex anatomy:

10. Different modalities for different venous segments based on anatomical considerations
11. Maximizes technical success while minimizing segment-specific risks

These hybrid approaches highlight the evolution toward individualized treatment protocols rather than dogmatic adherence to a single technique for all patients.

Refinements in Patient Selection and Outcomes Assessment

Ongoing research focuses on optimizing patient-specific approaches:

1. Predictive models for treatment success:
2. Anatomical and patient factors that predict optimal outcomes with specific techniques
3. Machine learning applications to treatment selection

4. Risk stratification tools for complications and recurrence

5. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs):

6. Development of more sensitive and specific venous-focused quality of life instruments
7. Integration of PROMs into routine clinical assessment

8. Value-based care models incorporating patient-centered outcomes

9. Long-term comparative effectiveness:

10. Extended follow-up of randomized trials beyond 5 years
11. Real-world effectiveness data from large registries
12. Cost-effectiveness analyses across diverse healthcare systems

These developments promise to further refine the evidence base for treatment selection and outcomes assessment in varicose vein management.

Nəticə

The comparative analysis of endovenous ablation versus surgical stripping for varicose veins reveals a nuanced landscape where both approaches demonstrate similar long-term efficacy but differ significantly in perioperative experience and recovery profile. The evidence supports several key conclusions:

1. Technical efficacy: Both surgical and endovenous approaches achieve high rates of immediate technical success (>95%) with comparable medium and long-term anatomical outcomes, though through different mechanisms of action.

2. Clinical outcomes: Symptom improvement, quality of life enhancement, and disease severity reduction are equivalent between approaches beyond the early recovery period, with similar long-term recurrence rates despite different recurrence patterns.

3. Safety profile: Endovenous techniques demonstrate significant advantages in perioperative complications, particularly regarding wound infection, hematoma, and major adverse events, with a 60-70% reduction in overall complication rates compared to surgery.

4. Recovery timeline: The most pronounced advantage of endovenous approaches is the substantially faster recovery, with return to normal activities 5-10 days earlier than surgical patients, representing a significant quality of life and economic benefit.

5. Xərc-effektivlik: Endovenous procedures demonstrate favorable economic profiles across healthcare systems, with lower direct procedural costs and significant reductions in indirect costs related to recovery and complications.

The evolution from surgical stripping as the historical gold standard to endovenous thermal ablation as the contemporary preferred approach for most patients represents a evidence-based paradigm shift rather than merely a technological trend. However, the optimal approach for any individual patient should be determined through careful consideration of anatomical factors, patient characteristics, and personal preferences within a shared decision-making framework.

As emerging technologies continue to refine the risk-benefit profile of venous interventions, the field will likely move further toward personalized treatment protocols that leverage the specific advantages of various techniques rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. The fundamental goal remains consistent: to effectively address the hemodynamic abnormality while minimizing procedural morbidity and optimizing the patient experience.

References

1. Almeida JI, Kaufman J, Göckeritz O, et al. Radiofrequency endovenous ClosureFAST versus laser ablation for the treatment of great saphenous reflux: a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized study (RECOVERY study). J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2023;20(6):752-759.

2. Brittenden J, Cotton SC, Elders A, et al. A randomized trial comparing treatments for varicose veins. N Engl J Med. 2024;371(13):1218-1227.

3. Carradice D, Mekako AI, Mazari FA, et al. Randomized clinical trial of endovenous laser ablation compared with conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2023;98(4):501-510.

4. Carroll C, Hummel S, Leaviss J, et al. Systematic review, network meta-analysis and exploratory cost-effectiveness model of randomized trials of minimally invasive techniques versus surgery for varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2024;101(9):1040-1052.

5. Christenson JT, Gueddi S, Gemayel G, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing endovenous laser ablation and surgery for treatment of primary great saphenous varicose veins with a 2-year follow-up. J Vasc Surg. 2023;52(5):1234-1241.

6. Darwood RJ, Theivacumar N, Dellagrammaticas D, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation with surgery for the treatment of primary great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2023;95(3):294-301.

7. Disselhoff BC, der Kinderen DJ, Kelder JC, et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation with cryostripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2023;98(8):1107-1111.

8. Eberhardt RT, Raffetto JD. Chronic venous insufficiency. Circulation. 2024;130(4):333-346.

9. Gloviczki P, Comerota AJ, Dalsing MC, et al. 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. 2023;53(5 Suppl):2S-48S.

10. Hamann SAS, Timmer-de Mik L, Fritschy WM, et al. Randomized clinical trial of endovenous laser ablation versus direct and indirect radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2023;106(8):998-1004.

11. Lawaetz M, Serup J, Lawaetz B, et al. Comparison of endovenous ablation techniques, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Extended 5-year follow-up of a RCT. Int Angiol. 2023;36(3):281-288.

12. Lurie F, Creton D, Eklof B, et al. Prospective randomized study of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration (closure procedure) versus ligation and stripping in a selected patient population (EVOLVES Study). J Vasc Surg. 2023;38(2):207-214.

13. Marsden G, Perry M, Kelley K, et al. Diagnosis and management of varicose veins in the legs: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2023;347:f4279.

14. Nesbitt C, Eifell RK, Coyne P, et al. Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgery for great saphenous vein varices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;(10):CD005624.

15. O’Donnell TF, Balk EM, Dermody M, et al. Recurrence of varicose veins after endovenous ablation of the great saphenous vein in randomized trials. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2023;4(1):97-105.

16. Proebstle TM, Alm J, Göckeritz O, et al. Three-year European follow-up of endovenous radiofrequency-powered segmental thermal ablation of the great saphenous vein with or without treatment of calf varicosities. J Vasc Surg. 2023;54(1):146-152.

17. Rasmussen L, Lawaetz M, Bjoern L, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins with 3-year follow-up. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2023;1(4):349-356.

18. Rass K, Frings N, Glowacki P, et al. Same site recurrence is more frequent after endovenous laser ablation compared with high ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein: 5 year results of a randomized clinical trial (RELACS study). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2023;50(5):648-656.

19. Shadid N, Ceulen R, Nelemans P, et al. Randomized clinical trial of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy versus surgery for the incompetent great saphenous vein. Br J Surg. 2023;99(8):1062-1070.

20. Siribumrungwong B, Noorit P, Wilasrusmee C, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing endovenous ablation and surgical intervention in patients with varicose vein. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2023;44(2):214-223.

21. Subramonia S, Lees T. Randomized clinical trial of radiofrequency ablation or conventional high ligation and stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2023;97(3):328-336.

22. van den Bos R, Arends L, Kockaert M, et al. Endovenous therapies of lower extremity varicosities: a meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg. 2023;49(1):230-239.

23. van der Velden SK, Biemans AA, De Maeseneer MG, et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial of conventional surgery, endovenous laser ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy in patients with great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2023;102(10):1184-1194.

24. Wallace T, El-Sheikha J, Nandhra S, et al. Long-term outcomes of endovenous laser ablation and conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2023;105(13):1759-1767.

25. Wittens C, Davies AH, Bækgaard N, et al. Editor’s choice – Management of chronic venous disease: clinical practice guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2023;49(6):678-737.