Abstract
Aims and Background: There is an uncertainty in regards to management of branch varicose veins after EVLT. The aim of this audit was to find out if patients treated with EVLT had good clinical outcome and whether they required further procedures for their varicose veins Methods: We searched a prospective theatre database for EVLT under a single vascular surgeon. We reviewed patients' discharge and clinic letters.
Results: Over 1 year period, 92 legs were treated with EVLT with no primary treatment of branch varicose veins. Patients aged between 21 and 79 (median 49). 71 patients attended for follow up post EVLT. Out of 71 legs which attended for follow up, only 26 (38%) legs required further treatment. Out of 26 legs, 6 had treatment in first FU appointment (all injection sclerotherapy). Twenty patients had treatment in day case unit. The treatments given to those 20 patients were as follows (1 had avulsions, 1 USS guided Foam sclerotherapy and 18 had injection sclerotherapy). Out of these 20 patients, only one patient required another episode of injection sclerotherapy.
There was not a significant difference between the two groups (no further treatment vs. further treatment) in regards to age (P=0.45), length of time between OPA and treatment (p=0.67), length of time between treatment and first FU (p=0.29). The only significant difference was that more females (19/45) required further treatment than males(7/25)(42% vs 28% p=0.046)
Eight legs (9%) had 9 complications: 4 complications happened as the result of EVLT(Haematoma, Sensitive skin *2, Angina attack ). 5 complications happened after injection sclerotherapy ( Ulceration*1, Bruising *2, Discomfort *1, Thrombophlebitis *1)
Conclusions: EVLT is an effective method to treat varicose veins. It had been introduced to safely with high success and low complication rates.Our algorithm of not performing primary treatment for superficial varicosities and reserving injection sclerotherapy for those who have residual varicosities seemed effective. It might not be necessary to treat branch varicose veins primarily and reserve treatment for unregressing veins.
Introduction
EVLT was introduced as the method of choice for treatment of varicose veins amenable to EVLT in the Royal Oldham Hospital in March 2008. There is an uncertainty in regards to management of branch varicose veins after EVLT. Some surgeons perform EVLT and reserve management of residual veins for those in whom troublesome varicosities persisted. Other surgeons perform combined EVLT and phlebectomy.
Aims:
To find out if patients treated with EVLT had good clinical outcome and whether they required further procedures for their varicose veins.
Methods
We searched a prospective theatre database for EVLT under a single vascular surgeon. We reviewed patients' discharge and clinic letters.
The following data was collected.
* Age
* Sex
* Type of surgery
* Length of time between OPA and surgery
* Length of time between surgery and first FU
* Number of FU appointments
* Further scans
* Further procedures (in outpatients or theatre)
* Complications.
Results
Between March 2008 and March 2009, 92 legs were treated with EVLT under one surgeon. These were 48 left legs (52%) and 44 right legs (48%) Sixty-two legs were females (67%) and 30 were males (33%). They aged between 21 and 79 (median 49).
Patients suitable for EVLT on Venous Duplex scan were treated with EVLT. Median time between OPA and treatment was 170 days (range 9-442 days). Out of 92 legs, 71 attended for follow up post EVLT. Median time between treatment and first FU appointment was 111 days (range 48-237)
Treatment for branch varicosities:
Out of 71 legs that attended for follow up, only 26 (38%) legs required further treatment.
Out of 26 legs, six had treatment in first FU appointment (all injection sclerotherapy).
Among those who had treatment in first follow up appointment, four did not require any further treatment, one of them required one more episode of injection sclerotherapy and one required two more episodes of injection sclerotherapy.
Twenty patients had treatment in day case unit.
The treatments given to those 20 patients were as follows:
- 1 had avulsions
- 1 USS guided Foam sclerotherapy
- 18 had injection sclerotherapy.
Out of these 20 patients, only one patient required another episode of injection sclerotherapy.
To find out whether there are any factors, which led some patients to require treatment post EVLT, we compared the No Further Treatment Group with the Further Treatment Group. There was not a significant difference between the two groups in regards to age (P=0.45), length of time between OPA and treatment (p=0.67), length of time between treatment and first FU (p=0.29). The only significant difference was that more females (19/45) required further treatment than males (7/25) (42% vs. 28% p=0.046)
Complications:
Eight legs (9%) had nine complications:
Four complications happened as the result of EVLT:
- Haematoma
- Sensitive skin *2
- Angina attack (same patient who had thrombophlebitis with subsequent injection sclerotherapy)
Five complications happened after injection sclerotherapy.
- Ulceration *1
- Bruising *2
- Discomfort (attended surgical assessment unit) *1
- Thrombophlebitis *1
Conclusion
EVLT is an effective method to treat varicose veins. It had been introduced to TROH safely with high success and low complication rates.
Our algorithm of not performing primary treatment for superficial varicosities and reserving injection sclerotherapy for those who have residual varicosities seemed effective. It might not be necessary to treat branch varicose veins primarily and reserve treatment for unregressing veins
Source(s) of Funding
Neither sought nor received.
Competing Interests
None
Disclaimer
This article has been downloaded from WebmedCentral. With our unique author driven post publication peer
review, contents posted on this web portal do not undergo any prepublication peer or editorial review. It is
completely the responsibility of the authors to ensure not only scientific and ethical standards of the manuscript
but also its grammatical accuracy. Authors must ensure that they obtain all the necessary permissions before
submitting any information that requires obtaining a consent or approval from a third party. Authors should also
ensure not to submit any information which they do not have the copyright of or of which they have transferred
the copyrights to a third party.
Contents on WebmedCentral are purely for biomedical researchers and scientists. They are not meant to cater to
the needs of an individual patient. The web portal or any content(s) therein is neither designed to support, nor
replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her physician. Your use of the
WebmedCentral site and its contents is entirely at your own risk. We do not take any responsibility for any harm
that you may suffer or inflict on a third person by following the contents of this website.