Endoscopic versus open subfascial division of incompetent perforating veins in the treatment of venous leg ulceration: long-term follow-up.

Department of Vascular Surgery, Sint Franciscus Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Journal of Vascular Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.88). 06/2001; 33(5):1028-32. DOI: 10.1067/mva.2001.114812
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Subfascial division of incompetent perforating veins seems to be a successful treatment for patients with venous leg ulceration (CEAP 6). For postoperative wound complications, endoscopic techniques are more common than open subfascial division of incompetent perforating veins (Linton procedure). We investigated the long-term results of ulcer healing and recurrence rates and compared them with preoperative and postoperative duplex findings.
Patients with venous ulceration on the medial side of the lower leg were randomly allocated to endoscopic exploration or open exploration by means of the modified Linton approach. Ulcer healing and recurrence rates were documented.
Thirty-nine patients were randomly allocated to exploration, 19 patients to open subfascial division of incompetent perforating veins (Linton group), and 20 patients to subfascial endoscopic division of incompetent perforating veins (SEPS group). During the follow-up period, four patients in the SEPS group died, all of causes other than the venous leg ulcer. Because of a squamous cell carcinoma that had developed in the venous ulcer, one patient in the SEPS group underwent a below-knee amputation. In a mean follow-up period of 50.6 months, the venous ulceration of all 18 patients in the Linton group who were available for follow-up initially healed. The recurrence rate in this group was 22% (4 patients). In the SEPS group, the mean follow-up period for 19 patients was 46.1 months, with the ulceration healing in 17 patients and a recurrence rate of 12% (2 patients). The presence of deep venous incompetence (DVI) did not influence the recurrence rates (P =.044, Fisher exact test), but it significantly influenced the development of new incompetent perforating veins (3 of 10 without DVI; 7 of 10 with DVI; P =.011, binomial test).
The long-term follow-up results of the endoscopic division of perforating veins are comparable with those of the open division of perforating veins (modified Linton procedure).

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Prevalence of varicose ulcers in Brazil has been estimated as high as 3.6%. Perforator vein insufficiency is the main source for the development of these ulcers. The recently proposed SEPS technique is regarded as minimally invasive approach followed by low complication rates and short in-hospital stay. Our objective is to study the results of subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery associated or not to superficial venous system surgery. METHODS: Prospective, non-controlled ,clinical study. Inclusion criteria were patent deep venous system, patient with primary or secondary venous insufficiency (congenital not included) and an ankle/arm index higher than 0.8; exclusion criteria were: deep vein thrombosis, trauma or orthopedic surgery and deep venous system surgery occurring during post-operative follow-up. All patients had a duplex-scan perfomed before operation. RESULTS: Forty-three lower limbs were operated on since june/97; there were 27 patients with mean age 56.6 years; great saphenous vein, lesser saphenous vein and tributaries stripping were associated in 29 limbs; three limb were classified as C3, 15 as C4, 11 as C5 and 14 as C6. Venous insufficiency was secondary to deep venous thrombosis in 2 limbs. There were no immediate deaths; three to five perforators per limb were ligated; all ulcers healed during a period from two to 15 weeks; there were three infections (6.9%); 19 patients left hospital on 1st, six on 2nd and two on 3rd post-operative day. There was one ulcer recurrence (4.0%) after 10 months (perforator vein left in place). CONCLUSION: the procedure is safe, the hospitalization time is short, ulcer healing occurs mostly within two weeks and recurrence rate depends on a follow-up period at least of five years.
    Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões 06/2003; 30(3):170-176.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Úlceras venosas são comuns na população adulta, causando significante impacto social e econômico devido a sua natureza recorrente e ao longo tempo decorrido entre sua abertura e cicatrização. Quando não manejadas adequadamente, as úlceras venosas têm altas taxas de falha de cicatrização e recorrência. Apesar da elevada prevalência e da importância da úlcera venosa, ela é freqüentemente negligenciada e abordada de maneira inadequada. Esta revisão discute abordagem diagnóstica e terapêutica das úlceras venosas. O diagnóstico clínico baseia-se em história e exame físico, com ênfase nos sinais e sintomas associados e palpação dos pulsos dos membros inferiores. A ultra-sonografia Doppler deve ser utilizada para determinar o índice pressórico entre o tornozelo e o braço, e exames não invasivos, como o duplex scan, devem ser realizados para avaliar o sistema venoso superficial, profundo e perfurante. Para abordagem terapêutica são fundamentais os diagnósticos clínico e laboratorial corretos, além do diagnóstico e tratamento adequados das complicações das úlceras crônicas. Os esforços devem ser direcionados para a cicatrização da úlcera e, posteriormente, para evitar as recidivas. O grande avanço no conhecimento da fisiopatogenia das úlceras venosas tem permitido o desenvolvimento de novas modalidades de tratamento clínico e cirúrgico.
    Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 12/2006; 81(6):509-522. · 0.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Leg ulcers usually occur secondary to venous reflux or obstruction, but 20% of people with leg ulcers have arterial disease, with or without venous disorders. Between 1.5 and 3.0/1000 people have active leg ulcers. Prevalence increases with age to about 20/1000 in people aged over 80 years. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of standard treatments, adjuvant treatments, and organisational interventions for venous leg ulcers? What are the effects of advice about self-help interventions in people receiving usual care for venous leg ulcers? What are the effects of interventions to prevent recurrence of venous leg ulcers? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). We found 101 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: compression bandages and stockings, cultured allogenic (single or bilayer) skin replacement, debriding agents, dressings (cellulose, collagen, film, foam, hyaluronic acid-derived, semi-occlusive alginate), hydrocolloid (occlusive) dressings in the presence of compression, intermittent pneumatic compression, intravenous prostaglandin E1, larval therapy, laser treatment (low-level), leg ulcer clinics, multilayer elastic system, multilayer elastomeric (or non-elastomeric) high-compression regimens or bandages, oral treatments (aspirin, flavonoids, pentoxifylline, rutosides, stanozolol, sulodexide, thromboxane alpha(2) antagonists, zinc), peri-ulcer injection of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, self-help (advice to elevate leg, to keep leg active, to modify diet, to stop smoking, to reduce weight), short-stretch bandages, single-layer non-elastic system, skin grafting, superficial vein surgery, systemic mesoglycan, therapeutic ultrasound, and topical treatments (antimicrobial agents, autologous platelet lysate, calcitonin gene-related peptide plus vasoactive intestinal polypeptide, freeze-dried keratinocyte lysate, mesoglycan, negative pressure, recombinant keratinocyte growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor).
    Clinical evidence 01/2011; 2011.