Journal of Chest Surgery

The Korean Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (대한심장혈관흉부외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Endovenous Treatment Using a 980 nm Diode Laser versus Conventional Stripping for Truncal Saphenous Vein Incompetence: Mid-term Results by VCSS Score and Recurrence

복재정맥 부전에 대한 980-nm 다이오드 레이저를 이용한 치료와 전통적인 발거술 간의 비교: VCSS 점수와 재발에 의한 중기 임상 결과

  • Choi, Jae-Sung (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Dongguk University College of Medical) ;
  • Kim, Eung-Joong (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Dongguk University College of Medical) ;
  • Lee, Jeong-Sang (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Boramae Hospital)
  • 최재성 (동국대학교 의과대학 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 김응중 (동국대학교 의과대학 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 이정상 (서울대학교 보라매병원 흉부외과)
  • Received : 2010.06.08
  • Accepted : 2010.07.13
  • Published : 2010.08.05
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The aims of the present study were to assess and compare mid-term clinical outcomes including recurrences between endovenous laser therapy (EVLT) and stripping. Material and Method: Between January 2007 and February 2010, 318 limbs in 237 patients with saphenous truncal varicosities were treated by laser energy using a 980 nm diode or were treated with conventional stripping. At the initial visit and at 1, 2, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively, clinical examination and questioning for Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) as well as duplex ultrasonography were done. In order to compare clinical outcomes between the two treatment groups, EVLT versus stripping, all data were processed and analyzed. Result: There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups in the extent of the reflux and the number of insufficient perforating veins. The in EVLT and the stripping group at 12 months were $90.3{\pm}4.5%$ and $93.9{\pm}4.2%$, respectively (p>0.05). Total recurrence rates were 4.4% in the EVLT group and 1.5% in the stripping group (p>0.05). In both groups, the VCSS scores were significantly reduced at week 1, 1 month, and 2 months after EVLT or stripping (p<0.001). Conclusion: Efficiency in eliminating truncal saphenous vein incompetence and reducing venous clinical severity were equal in the two treatment groups.

배경: 이번 연구의 목적은 정맥내 레이저 응고술(EVLT)과 발거술의 재발을 포함한 중기 임상 결과를 비교 평가하는 것이다. 대상 및 방법: 2007년 1월부터 2010년 2월까지 237명의 환자에서 대복재 및 소복재 정맥류 318개를 대상으로 980-nm 다이오드 레이저 또는 전통적인 발거술을 시행하였다. 첫 방문과 수술 후 1, 2, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36개월째 외래를 방문한 모든 환자를 대상으로 듀플렉스 초음파 검사와 Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) 기록을 위한 임상검사 및 설문조사를 시행하였다. EVLT 및 정맥류 발거술의 두 치료군 간의 임상 결과를 비교하기 위해 수집된 모든 데이터를 이에 맞게 가공하여 분석하였다. 결과: 두 치료군 간에 관통정맥 부전의 수나 정맥 역류의 정도는 차이가 없었다. EVLT나 발거술로 대복재 및 소복재 정맥의 역류가 제거된 후 이 역류 제거 상태의 성공적인 유지율은 양 군간에 차이가 없었으며 12개월째 성공적인 유지율은 EVLT군이 $90.3{\pm}4.5%$, 발거술군이 $93.9{\pm}4.2%$였다. 전체적인 재발율은 EVLT군이 4.4%, 발거술군이 1.5%로 두 군간의 통계적인 차이는 없었다. VCSS 점수는 두 군 모두에서 수술 후 1주와 1개월, 2개월에 유의한 감소를 보였다. 결론: 대복재 및 소복재 정맥 부전의 제거에 대한 효율성이나 정맥 부전으로 인한 임상 경과의 수술 후 개선 능력 등에 있어 EVLT와 발거술은 비슷한 결과를 나타냈다.

Keywords

References

  1. Min RJ, Khilnani N, Zimmet SE. Endovenous laser treatment of saphenous vein reflux: long-term results. J Vasc lnterv Radiol 2003;14:991-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000082864.05622.E4
  2. Proebstle TM, Lehr HA, Kargl A, et al. Endovenous treatment of the greater saphenous vein with a 940-nm diode laser: thrombotic occlusion after endoluminal thermal damage by laser-generated steam bubbles. J Vasc Surg 2002;35:729- 36. https://doi.org/10.1067/mva.2002.121132
  3. Oh CK, Jung DS, Jang HS, Kwon KS. Endovenous laser surgery of the incompetent greater saphenous vein with a 980-nm diode laser. Dermatol Surg 2003;29:1135-40. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4725.2003.29353.x
  4. Park SJ, Yim SB, Cha DW, Kim SC, Lee SH Endovenous laser treatment of the small saphenous vein with a 980-nm diode laser: early results. Dermatol Surg 2008;34:517-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.2007.34097.x
  5. Proebstle TM, Gul D, Kargl A, Knop J. Endovenous laser treatment of the lesser saphenous vein with a 940-nm diode laser: early results. Dermatol Surg 2003;29:357-61. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4725.2003.29085.x
  6. Kluner C, Fischer T, Filimonow S, Hamm B, Kroncke T. Endovenous treatment of primary varicose veins: an effective and safe therapeutic alternative to stripping? Rofo 2005;177: 179-87. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-813892
  7. Theivacumar NS, Darwood R, Gough MJ. Neovascularisation and recurrence 2 years after varicose vein treatment for saphenofemoral and great saphenous vein reflux: a comparison of surgery and endovenous laser ablation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2009;38:203-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2009.03.031
  8. Disselhoff BC, Buskens E, Kelder JC, der Kinderen DJ, Moll FL. Randomised comparison of costs and cost-effectiveness of cryostripping ami endovenous laser ablation for varicose veins: 2-year results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2009;37:357-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2008.11.013
  9. Eklof B, Rutherford RB, Bergan JJ, et al. American venous forum international ad hoc committee for revision of the ceap classification. Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: consensus statement. J Vasc Surg 2004;40:1248-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2004.09.027
  10. Lahl W, Hofmann B, Jelonek M, Nagel T. The endovenous EVL therapy of varicose veins?substantial innovation or expensive surgery? Zentralbl Chir 2006;131:45-50. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-921389
  11. van Groenendael L, van der Vliet JA, Flinkenflogel L, et al. Treatment of recurrent varicose veins of the great saphenous vein by conventional surgery and endovenous laser ablation. J Vasc Surg 2009;50:1106-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2009.06.057
  12. Kostas T, Ioannou CV, Touloupakis E, et al. Recurrent varicose veins after surgery: a new appraisal of a common and complex problem in vascular surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2004;27:275-82.
  13. van Rij AM, Jiang P, Solomon C, Christie RA, Hill GB. Recurrence after varicose vein surgery: a prospective long-term clinical study with duplex ultrasound scanning and air plethysmography. J Vasc Surg 2003;38:935-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0741-5214(03)00601-3
  14. Rasmussen LH, Bjoem L, Lawaetz M, Lawaetz B, Blemings A, Eklof B. Randomised clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation with stripping of the great saphenous vein: clinical outcome and recurrence after 2 years. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2010;39:630-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2009.11.040
  15. Rasmussen L. Laser treatment as an alternative for the treatment of GSV and SSV incompetence. In: Wittens C. Innovative treatment of venous disorders. EVC Edizioni Minerva Medica Turin. 2009.
  16. Mozes G, Kalra M, Carmo M, Swenson L, Gloviczki P. Ex extension of saphenous thrombus into the femoral vein: a potential complication of new endovenous ablation techniques. J Vasc Surg 2005;41:130-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2004.10.045
  17. Vasquez MA, Munschauer CE. Venous Clinical Severity Score and quality-of-life assessment tools: application to vein practice. Phleb 2008;23:259-75. https://doi.org/10.1258/phleb.2008.008018
  18. Gillet JL, Perrin MR, Allaert FA. Clinical presentation and venous severity scoring of patients with extended deep axial venous reflux. J Vasc Surg 2006;44:588-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2006.04.056
  19. Rutherford RB, Padberg FT Jr, Comerota AJ, Kistner RL, Meissner MH, Moneta GL. American venous forum's Ad Hoc committee on venous outcomes assessment. Venous severity scoring: an adjunct to venous outcome assessment. J Vasc Surg 2000;31:1307-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0741-5214(00)90143-5
  20. Rasmussen LH, Bjoern L, Lawaetz M, Blemings A, Lawaetz B, Eklof B. Randomized trial comparing endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein with high ligation and stripping in patients with varicose veins: Short-term results. J Vasc Surg 2007;46:308-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2007.03.053
  21. Medeiros CAF, Luccas GC. Comparison of the endovenous treatment with an 810 nm laser versus conventional stripping of the great saphenous vein in patients with primary varicose veins. Dermatol Surg 2005;31:1685-94. https://doi.org/10.2310/6350.2005.31309