Córdova-Quintal P, Flores-Escartín M, Zárraga-Rodríguez JL

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 25-29
PDF size: 183.80 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Material and methods: It was a prospective, comparing the technique with the conventional total saphenectomy plus crossectomy vs. guided USG foam sclerotherapy.
Results: 40 patients were included in this study, 20 were included in the sclerotherapy crossectomy protocol (group I) and 20 in the conventional saphenectomy (group II). There were no significant differences between the clinical and demographic groups. We found a statistically significant ‹ 0.05 between the two procedures with respect to surgical time and intraoperative bleeding, also in the immediate postoperative ambulation time was better for patients in group I, the hospital stay was less for group I (1.75 ± 0.5 days) compared with group II (2.2 ± 0.7 days), the recovery time in the crossectomy (5.6 ± 1.9 days) compared with the total saphenectomy (9.1 ± 1.7 days). Group II, 15 (75%) of patients had complications in group I only 7 (35%).
Conclusions: Crossectomy more sclerotherapy is an effective technique for management of chronic venous disease presenting returns compared to conventional procedure in the recovery time and fewer complications. The level of satisfaction expressed by patients is higher in the more crossectomy sclerotherapy in patients undergoing saphenectomy.

REFERENCES

1. Gloviczki P. The Care of patients with varicose veins and associated chronic venous disease: Clinical practice guidelines of the SVS and American Venous Forum. J Vasc Surg 2011; 53: 2s-48s.

2. Robertson L. Epidemiology of chronic venous disease. Phlebology 2008; 23: 103.

3. Lapiedra O. Clasificación CEAP. Criterios para selección y manejo de prioridades. Anales de Cirugía Cardíaca y Vascular 2004; 10(2): 96-143.

4. Raffetto D. Mechanisms of varicose vein formation: valve dysfunction and wall dilation. Phlebology 2008; 23: 85-98.

5. Viver E. Tratamientos en la insuficiencia venosa crónica. Indicaciones y resultados. Anales de Cirugía Cardíaca y Vascular 2004; 10(2): 96-143.

6. Perrin M. Cirugía de la insuficiencia venosa superficial. EMC 43-161-A 2005.

7. Dwerryhouse S. Stripping the long saphenous vein reduces the rate of reoperation for recurrent varicose veins: Five-year results of a randomized trial. J Vasc Surg 1999; 29: 589-92.

8. V den Bos R. Endovenous therapies of lower extremity varicosities: A meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg 2009; 49: 230-9.

9. Cavezzi, Tessari L. Foam sclerotherapy techniques: different gases and methods of preparation, catheter versus direct injection. Phlebology 2009; 24: 247-51.

10. Parsi K. The lytic effects of detergent sclerosants on erythrocytes, platelets, endothelial cells and microparticles are attenuated by albumin and other plasma components in vitro. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008; 36: 216-23.

11. Soumian S. Endovenous management of varicose veins. Phlebology 2004; 19(4).

12. Chapman-Smith P. Prospective five-year study of ultrasound- guided foam sclerotherapy in the treatment of great saphenous vein reflux. Phlebology 2009; 24: 183-8.

13. Chandler J. Defining the role of extended saphen-ofemoral junction ligation: a prospective comparative study. J Vasc Surg 2000; 32: 941-53.

14. Disselhoff BC. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenouslaser ablation of the great saphenous vein with and without ligation of the sapheno-femoraljunction: two-year results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008; 36: 713-8.

15. Saphenofemoral junction ligation supplemented by postoperative sclerotherapy: a review of long-term clinical and hemodynamic results. Vasc Endovasc Surg 2004; 38: 533-40.