Varicose Vein Surgery Treatment & Management

The surgical treatment of varicose veins have been under development for more than 2000 years, but until the present era, relatively little weight was given to the cosmetic outcome of treatment. Current therapies are becoming less invasive with improved recovery, but long-term outcomes are uncertain. Therapies aim to remove the superficial venous system either through surgery, endovenous ablation, or sclerotherapy ablation.

In 90% of cases where venous hypertension is from superficial and perforator vein reflux, removal or obliteration of the GSV alone can resolve the venous hypertension.^{[7, 13]} However, in the remaining 10%, additional treatment to the incompetent perforator veins may be needed. Additionally, if severe deep venous incompetence exists, treatment of the GSV alone usually does not resolve the venous hypertension. In both these cases, additional interventions with subfascial endoscopic perforating vein surgery (SEPS), perforator vein ablation, and/or venous reconstruction can be attempted, but these details are not further discussed in this article.

For now, the authors will discuss the procedures to remove or obliterate the superficial venous system, starting from most to least invasive. Historical perspectives, advantages, and disadvantages to each technique will also be addressed. However, prior to any intervention, duplex US should always be used to map all major reflux pathways, and a skin marker should be used to mark all surface vessels to be removed.

Open techniques

The Rindfleisch-Friedel procedure of the early 1900s involved one incision to the level of the deep fascia that wrapped around the leg 6 times, creating a spiral gutter that brought into view a large number of superficial veins, each one of which was ligated. This wound was left open to heal by granulation. The Linton procedure, introduced in the late 1930s, used a large linear medial leg incision that brought into view all the superficial and perforator veins of the leg. Incompetent superficial veins were removed, and perforating veins were interrupted.^[14]

Friedrich Trendelenburg, in the late 1800s, introduced a midthigh ligation of the GSV. The outcomes were variable, and this procedure was later modified by Trendelenburg's student Perthes, who advocated a groin incision and a ligation of the GSV at the saphenofemoral junction. Later, even better outcomes were found if saphenectomy (removal of the GSV) with ligation at the SFJ was performed over ligation alone. In a randomized trial, two thirds of patients with ligation without saphenectomy could be expected to need reintervention within 5 years for recurrent reflux, either through recanalization or collateral formation around the ligated GSV.^{[14, 15]}

GSV saphenectomy

Surgical removal of the GSV has evolved from large open incisions to less invasive stripping. Original methods of stripping used different devices and variations of techniques. The Mayo stripper was an extraluminal ring that cut the tributaries as it was passes along the vein. The Babcock device was an intraluminal stripper with an acorn-shaped head that pleated up the vein as it pulled the vessel loose from its attachments. The Keller device was an internal wire used to pull the vein through itself, as is done today with perforation-invagination (PIN) strippers.

Currently, the technique of PIN stripping begins with a 2- to 3-cm incision made at the groin crease. The femoral vein and SFJ are exposed with dissection and all tributaries of the SFJ must be identified and flush-ligated to minimize the incidence of reflux recurrence.

After ligation and division of the junction, the stripping instrument (usually a stiff but flexible length of wire or plastic) is passed into the GSV at the groin and threaded through the incompetent vein distally to the level of the upper calf. The stripper is brought out through a small incision (5 mm or smaller) approximately 1 cm from the tibial tuberosity at the knee. An inverting head is attached to the stripper at the groin and is secured to the proximal end of the vein. The vessel is then inverted into itself, tearing away from each tributary and perforator as the stripper is pulled downward through the leg and out through the incision in the upper calf, as depicted in the image below. If desired, a long epinephrine-soaked gauze or ligature may be secured to the stripper before invagination, allowing hemostatic packing to be pulled into place after stripping is complete.

An older technique of stripping to the ankle (rather than to just the knee) has fallen into disfavor because of a high incidence of complications, including damage to the saphenous nerve, which is closely associated with the vein below the knee.^[9]

SSV saphenectomy

Removal of the short saphenous vein is complicated by variable local anatomy and risk of injury to the popliteal vein and peroneal nerve. The saphenopopliteal junction must be located by duplex examination before beginning the dissection, and adequate direct visualization of the junction is essential. After ligation and division of the junction, the stripping instrument (often a more rigid stripper that facilitates navigation) is passed downward into the distal calf, where it is brought out through a small incision (2-4 mm). The stripper is secured to the proximal end of the vein, which is invaginated into itself as it is pulled downward from knee to ankle and withdrawn from below.

Stab phlebectomy (or ambulatory phlebectomy)

Performed by Galen as early as the second century, this procedure came back into modern favor during the 1960s and has increased in popularity ever since. This procedure is extremely useful for the treatment of residual vein clusters after saphenectomy and for removal of nontruncal tributaries when the saphenous vein is competent.

A microincision is made over the vessel using a tiny blade or a large needle, a phlebectomy hook is introduced into the microincision, and the vein is delivered through the incision. With traction, as long a segment as possible is pulled out of the body until the vein breaks or cannot be pulled any further. Another microincision is made and the process is begun again and repeated along the entire length of the vein to be extracted. Short segments of veins can be removed through tiny incisions without ligatures, and skin closure is not necessary.^[9]

Endovascular techniques

Endovenous (EV) laser

A laser fiber produces endoluminal heat that destroys the vascular endothelium. A Seldinger technique is used to advance a long catheter along the entire length of the truncal varicosity (usually the GSV) to be ablated. A bare laser fiber is passed through the catheter until the end protrudes from the tip of the catheter by approximately 2 cm, and the laser fiber tip is positioned at the SFJ just distal to the subterminal valve. The position is confirmed by ultrasound and by use of the laser guide light.

Under ultrasound guidance, tumescent solution with a local anesthetic is injected around the entire length of the vessel, separating it from its fascial sheath. This serves to insulate the heat from damaging adjacent structures, including nerves and skin, as well as pain control.

Firm pressure is applied to collapse the vein around the laser fiber, and the laser is fired generating heat, leading to intraluminal steam bubbles and irreversible endothelial damage and thrombosis. The fiber and catheter are withdrawn approximately 2 mm, and the laser is fired again. This process is repeated along the entire course of the vessel.^[16]

Radiofrequency (RF) ablation

RF thermal energy is delivered directly to the vessel wall, causing protein denaturation, collagenous contraction, and immediate closure of the vessel. In contrast to laser therapy, the RF catheter actually comes into contact with the lumen walls.

An introducer sheath is inserted into the proposed vein of treatment (again usually the GSV). A special RF ablation catheter is passed through the sheath and along the vein until the active tip is at the SFJ just distal to the subterminal valve. Just like the endovenous laser, tumescent local anesthetic is injected.

Metal fingers at the tip of the RF catheter are deployed until they make contact with the vessel endothelium. RF energy is delivered, both in and around the vessel to be treated. Thermal sensors record the temperature within the vessel and deliver just enough energy to ensure endothelial ablation. The RF catheter is withdrawn a short distance, and the process is repeated all along the length of the vein to be treated.

Subramonia and Lees found that, compared with conventional high ligation and stripping, radiofrequency ablation of great saphenous varicose veins took longer to perform, but patients returned to their normal activities significantly earlier and had significantly less postoperative pain.^[17]

Minimally invasive techniques

Cutaneous electrodesiccation

This is an old technique involving electrical cautery for destruction of small vessels that is rarely used today because of the disfiguring cutaneous injury.

Sclerotherapy

Chemical sclerosis of varicose veins has waxed and waned in popularity since the late 1800s. Modern sclerosants with an acceptable risk profile became widely available in the 1930s, and, since that time, there use has expanded. Initially, sclerotherapy was used as a surgical adjunct after saphenectomy to treat residual varicosities, reticular veins, or telangiectasias. Now it is being used to treat the GSV and main tributaries.

Under US guidance, a sclerosing substance is injected into abnormal vessels to produce endothelial destruction that is followed by formation of a fibrotic cord and eventual reabsorption of all vascular tissue layers, as depicted in the image below.

Local treatment of the superficial manifestations of venous insufficiency will always fail if the underlying high points of reflux have not been found and treated. Even when the patient appears to have only primary telangiectasias and the initial treatment seems to be successful, recurrences will be seen very quickly if unrecognized reflux exists in larger subsurface vessels.

Caution must be used when using sclerosing agents, inadvertent injection into an arteriovenous malformation or directly into an unrecognized artery can cause extensive tissue loss or loss of the entire limb. Inadvertent injection of concentrated sclerosants into the deep system can cause DVT, pulmonary embolism, and death.

The most commonly used sclerosants today are polidocanol (Asclera) and sodium tetradecyl sulfate. Both are known as detergent sclerosants because they are amphiphilic substances, inactive in dilute solution, but biologically active when they form micelles. These agents are preferred because they have a low incidence of allergic reactions, produce a low incidence of staining and other adverse cutaneous effects, and are relatively forgiving if extravasated. Polidocanol, the most forgiving sclerosing agent, was originally developed as a local anesthetic agent. Polidocanol was approved by the FDA in March, 2010.

Other agents that have fallen out of favor include sodium morrhuate, associated with a relatively high incidence of anaphylaxis. Ethanolamine oleate, a weak detergent, is excessively soluble, decreasing its ability to denature cell surface proteins. Hypertonic saline in a 20% or 23.4% solution can be used as a sclerosing agent, but, because of dilutional effects with injection, it is difficult to achieve adequate sclerosis of large vessels without exceeding a tolerable salt load. If extravasated, it almost invariably causes significant necrosis.

The addition of foam with the sclerosing agents has allowed for decreased amounts of sclerosing agent injection and improved efficacy.^[18] Foam pushes blood out of the vein, allowing for less dilution and more contact of the sclerosant with the endothelium. Homemade foam is usually air agitated in saline. This has theoretical risks of air emboli, so commercially available foam consists of mostly carbon dioxide. Varisolve (BTG, West Conshohocken, PA) is one such product using carbon dioxide foam and polidocanol sclerosant, as depicted in the image below.^[19]

In the US, sodium tetradecyl sulfate, sodium morrhuate, and ethanolamine oleate were all developed prior to the establishment of the FDA. These agents have never been submitted to the FDA for approval, but they are available in the United States as grandfathered agents. No FDA–approved foam/sclerosing agents are available; however, the Varisolve product is currently under clinical trials in the United States after being used extensively in Europe.^[19]

After treatment of large varicose veins by any method, a 30- to 40-mm Hg gradient compression stocking is applied and patients are instructed to maintain or increase their normal activity levels. Most practitioners also recommend the use of gradient compression stockings even after treatment of spider veins and smaller tributary veins.

O'Hare et al found that compression bandaging for 24 hours, followed by use of thromboembolus deterrent stockings for the remainder of 14 days, gave results comparable to compression bandaging for 5 days. In a randomized trial in patients undergoing foam sclerotherapy for primary uncomplicated varicose veins, no significant difference was noted in vein occlusion, phlebitis, skin discoloration, or pain at 2 and 6 weeks with the two techniques.^[20]

Ace wraps and other long-stretch bandages should not be used. These elastic bandages fail to maintain adequate compression for more than a few hours. They often slip or are misapplied by patients, with a resulting tourniquet effect that causes distal swelling and increases the risk of DVT.

Activity is particularly important after treatment by any technique because all modalities of treatment for varicose disease have the potential to increase the risk of DVT. Activity is a strong protective factor against venous stasis. Activity is so important that most venous specialists will not treat a patient who is unable to remain active following treatment.

For patient education resources, visit eMedicine's Circulatory Problems Center. Also, see eMedicine's patient education articles Varicose Veins, Blood Clot in the Legs, and Phlebitis.

A correct diagnosis of superficial venous insufficiency is essential. Veins should be treated only if they are incompetent and if a normal collateral pathway exits. Removal of a saphenous vein with a competent termination will not aid in the management of nontruncal tributary varices.

In the setting of deep system obstruction, varicosities are hemodynamically helpful because they provide a bypass pathway for venous return. Hemodynamically helpful varices must not be removed or sclerosed. Ablation of these varicosities will cause rapid onset of pain and swelling of the extremity, eventually followed by the development of new varicose bypass pathways.

The most annoying minor complications of any venous surgery are dysesthesias from injury to the sural nerve or the saphenous nerve. Subcutaneous hematoma is a common complication, regardless of treatment technique used. It is easily managed with warm compress, NSAIDS, or aspiration if necessary.

At the saphenofemoral junction, accidental treatment of the femoral vein by inappropriate RF or laser catheter placement, or spread of sclerosant (not visualizing progression with US), or inappropriate surgical ligation can all lead to endothelium damage at the deep vein, causing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) formation with the potential of pulmonary embolism (PE) and even death.^[16]

Other complications, such as postoperative infection and arterial injury, are less common and may be kept to a minimum through strict attention to good technique.

Endovenous treatment techniques (with RF and laser therapy) have the potential of excessive tissue heating, which can lead to skin burns. This problem can be avoided if sufficient volumes of tumescent anesthetic are injected to elevate the skin away from the vein.^[16]

With appropriate treatment, the vast majority of patients have a good outcome and the progression of their disease is arrested. Surgical stripping of the GSV, or saphenectomy, has been the criterion standard to which most therapies are compared.

In a randomized trial entitled the endovenous radiofrequency obliteration versus ligation and stripping (EVOLVeS) study, 68 legs were randomly assigned to undergo radio frequency ablation (RFA) or surgical stripping of the GSV. Immediate success for the RFA versus stripping on the day of treatment was 95% versus 100%, respectively. At 3 weeks, duplex ultrasonography confirmed closure of the GSV in 90.9% of the RFA group.^[21]

In the extended 2-year follow-up, there was a nonsignificant difference of the cumulative rates of recurrent varicose veins: 14% for RFA and 21% for stripping. However global quality-of-life scores were still in favor of RFA.^[22]

In a randomized trial of 137 legs, endovenous laser ablation was compared with saphenectomy. Both methods were equally efficacious at obliterating the GSV, but the saphenectomy group had higher postoperative pain scores. Other similar results between the saphenectomy and endovenous laser groups included time to resume normal physical activity (7.7 d vs 6.9 d), time to resume work (7.6 d vs 7 d), and total cost of the procedures ($3948 vs $4347 USD).^[23]

In another trial of 280 patients randomized to endovenous laser ablation compared with saphenectomy, follow up was extended to over a year. The authors found at 1 year, lower rates of clinical recurrence with the endovenous laser ablation versus surgery (4% vs 20.4%, P < .001). Twelve of 23 surgical recurrences were related to an incompetent below-knee GSV and 10 to neovascularization. In the endovenous laser group, 5 recurrences were reported. Two were related to neoreflux in the groin tributaries and 1 to recanalization.^[24]

In a more recent randomized trial of 500 patients and 580 legs, endovenous ablation, RFA, foam sclerotherapy, and surgical stripping were compared. At 1 year, the failure rates were significantly different in each group. The highest failure rates were seen in the foam ablation (16.3%) and endovenous ablation (5.8%) groups. The lowest failure rates were seen in the RFA (4.8%) and stripping groups (4.8%), although these 2 groups also had the highest postintervention pain scores.^[25]

Foam sclerotherapy has been used in Europe, and phase III randomized clinical trials have compared it with saphenectomy and sclerotherapy without foam. At 12 months, GSV closure rates were 87.2% in the saphenectomy versus 68.2% in the Varisolve arm. However, in the other arm, sclerotherapy without foam versus Varisolve, closure rates for the Varisolve group were much improved at 93.8%. Although surgery was more efficacious, Varisolve caused less pain and patients returned to normal more quickly.^[19] In the 710 patients enrolled, no pulmonary embolus was found, and DVTs were found in 2.5% of Varisolve, none in surgery, and 0.8% in those who received sclerotherapy without foam. In the United States, clinical trials are underway to assure there is no increased risk of embolic stroke from the use of Varisolve.

Management of varicose veins has evolved over the centuries and will continue to do so. Less invasive techniques continue to be refined but long-term efficacy must always be questioned and compared with the criterion standard of surgical saphenectomy.