title: Adjunctive proximal vein ligation with endovenous obliteration of great saphenous vein reflux: does it have clinical value?
abstract: The risk of clot extension to the deep venous system or pulmonary embolism following endovenous great saphenous vein (GSV) obliteration is possibly related to the size of the proximal GSV. Some practitioners therefore exclude endovenous GSV obliteration for veins greater than an arbitrary size, starting as little as 15 mm. Others provide adjunctive proximal GSV ligation either routinely, or in selected patients with large veins. The clinical value of adjunctive proximal GSV ligation is unknown. A survey of either the American Venous Forum or the American College of Phlebology, selected for their pedagogic or long-time experience with endovenous GSV obliteration. Respondent characteristics included obliteration technique (laser, radiofrequency [RF], or foam sclerotherapy), academic status, surgical training, indication for and frequency of adjunctive proximal GSV ligation, and society membership. The incidence of pulmonary embolus (PE) and deep vein thrombus (DVT) was also tallied. Twenty-one thousand nine hundred sixty-five endovenous GSV obliteration cases were reported, 10,290 with a laser (46.8%), 6,275 (28.6%) with RF, and 5,400 (24.6%) with foam. Only two PEs were reported. Of the 34 patients with DVT, at least 11 had only asymptomatic ultrasound evidence of thrombus extension into the femoral vein, and at least five had only calf vein thrombosis. Comparing ligators (7) with non-ligators (15), the only characteristic significantly correlating with adjunctive proximal GSV ligation was whether the respondent had complete general or vascular surgical training; non-surgeons never ligated the saphenous vein (p < .001). There was no difference between outcomes of ligators and non-ligators. Endovenous obliteration of the GSV poses little risk of PE or DVT, no matter what size the proximal GSV. Although these adverse events may be reduced with adjunctive proximal GSV ligation, the results of this study suggest that adjunctive proximal GSV ligation is superfluous in most patients.
authors.affiliation: Beverly Hills Vein Center, Beverly Hills, California 90210, USA. wayne@gradman.com
authors.forename: Wayne S
authors.initials: WS
authors.lastname: Gradman
mesh_terms: D017115:Catheter Ablation / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D053685:Laser Therapy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D008026:Ligation; D018579:Patient Selection; D011655:Pulmonary Embolism / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology* / Q000517:prevention & control; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012501:Saphenous Vein / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D015911:Sclerotherapy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014463:Ultrasonography; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology; D014648:Varicose Veins / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery* / Q000628:therapy; D014689:Venous Insufficiency / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery* / Q000628:therapy; D020246:Venous Thrombosis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology* / Q000517:prevention & control