Comment to: Great saphenous vein surgery without high ligation of the saphenofemoral junction by Casoni P, Lefebvre-Vilardebo M, Villa F, Corona P. J Vasc Surg 2013;58:173-8.

Stefano Ricci

Abstract

Traditional surgical treatment of varicose disease requires an invasive procedure like high ligation of sapheno femoral junction (SFJ), resulting in high recurrence rates, especially in the long term.
The aim of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate whether great saphenous vein (GSV) surgery without high ligation of the SFJ is beneficial in terms of varicose vein recurrence. The study enrolled 120 patients with GSV reflux due to SFJ incompetence, from December 2000 to May 2004, randomly allocated preoperatively to two groups undergoing GSV surgery with (group A) or without (group B) high ligation of the SFJ (60 patients and 62 limbs in each group). Surgery was performed under tumescent local anesthesia, continuous femoral block and Kleine tumescence by a single operator. Group A underwent standard GSV surgery, including high ligation of the SFJ, foramen ovale plasty and infolding suture to hide the free endothelium of the saphenous stump. Group B underwent GSV surgery without high ligation of the SFJ.
After the GSV was hooked through a small incision at lower leg level, a stripper device was inserted. Invagination stripping was performed without echographic guidance. The GSV was hooked at the thigh level, 2 to 3 cm below the groin (SFJ), and GSV ligature was performed in distal to epigastric and perineal veins to preserve physiologic drainage. Clinical evaluation and Duplex ultrasound scanning (DUS) were performed at 6 months and yearly thereafter. The follow-up of the last operated-on patient ended in May 2012, so that all patients had a minimal follow-up of 8 years. The primary end point was varicose vein recurrence, defined as an operated-on limb with new minimal thigh varices at clinical evaluation (CEAP C2) or venous reflux at the thigh or groin level, as assessed by DUS, or both. A total of 123 limbs were followed up 8 years after surgery.
The combined clinical and DUS-determined recurrence rate was 24.4% (30 of 123), consisting of 32.2% (20 of 62) in group A vs 16.4% (10 of 61) in group B. Long-term actuarial freedom from varicose vein recurrence was significantly higher in group B [85% than in group A (67%)]. The 1-year recurrence rate of 3.3% was lower than that achieved with endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) (11.6%), radio frequency ablation (RFA) (7.3%), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) (13.8%), and conventional surgery (14.8%). At 5 years postoperatively, surgery without high ligation of the SFJ resulted in a recurrence rate of 9.8%, which is significantly lower than the 25 to 47.1% reported for conventional surgery. This minimally invasive surgical approach was associated with a lower rate of treatment failure at short-term and long-term follow-up compared with conventional surgery. This could be due to the preservation of the SFJ during GSV reflux treatment enabling the sparing of some normal, competent tributaries (epigastric and perineal vein) draining the residual stump.
Finally, this surgical technique is less invasive and is associated with a reduced risk of inflammatory reactions at the site of groin dissection, resulting in a lower grade of neovascularization. Other advantages of GSV surgery without high ligation include lower costs of the procedure and earlier return to work.



Comment by Stefano Ricci

This is one of the most important papers published in recent years on GSV surgery. It gives an 8-year follow up of a method based on the revolutionary idea that SFJ does not have to be fully dissected. Although endovenous treatments have yielded good results in terms of recurrences leaving the 2 last cm of GSV exposed, yet this aspect has barely been tackled in surgery.1,2,3,4 Considering Laser and RF treatments costs and the economical crisis impinging upon most of the Western National Health Services, this new, simple and free option could become interesting if confirmed by further research.
Concerning the technique of saphenectomy without high ligation, no mention is made about the incision placed 2-3 cm below the groin and the method for hooking the GSV. Some questions are left unanswered: how large the incision is? Is the GSV found by the assistance of the stripping previously inserted? What is the management of the anterior accessory saphenous vein (one of the major causes of recurrence) when present?
Finally, it is a pity the authors did not cite Dortu’s pioneering work published on the French journal Phlébologie: Dortu, a fellow countryman of Dr. Lefebvre-Vilardebo, had the good idea. Just for historical recall, Dortu operated 596 patients by what he called supra-fascial crossectomy. Minumum follow up was three years. Over 125 cases (149 limbs) blindly chosen inside the patients list of the period 1982-1988, he could find 146 very good results, 2 recurrences on posterior accessory and 1 on anterior accessory (15 years after). Not all the history is written in English.


References

1. Dortu J. La crossectomie sus-fasciale au corse de la Phlebectomie Ambulatoire du complexe saphenien interne à la cuisse. Phlébologie 1993;46:123-36.
2. Fays-Bouchon N, Fays J. Une technique d’endo-eveinage de la saphéne interne en ambulatoire par micro-incisions. Phlébologie 1995;48:353-8.
3. Horakova MA, Horakova E. Ambulatory phlebectomy of incompetent great saphenous vein without flush saphenofemoral ligature: effect on the saphenofemoral junction. Phlébologie 2002;55:299-305.
4. Pittaluga P, Chastanet S, Guex J-J . Great saphenous vein stripping with preservation of sapheno-femoral confluence: hemodynamic and clinical results. J Vasc Surg 2008;47:1300-5.[Abstract]

[TOP]