https://doi.org/10.4081/vl.2026.14901
Does concomitant treatment of tributary varicose veins improve the results of standard endovenous thermal ablation of the great or small saphenous trunk? A systematic review and metanalysis
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Published: 28 April 2026
The optimal management of tributary varicose veins during Endovenous Thermal Ablation (EVTA) of the saphenous trunk for Chronic Venous Disease (CVD) remains an area of ongoing clinical debate. This study compares the “hybrid” approach (EVTA with concomitant treatment of tributaries) with the “standard” approach (EVTA alone).
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to December 2025 for comparative studies, including Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and observational studies (Supplementary Table 1). The primary outcome was the need for re-intervention for residual or recurrent varicose veins at ≥1 year. Secondary outcomes included improvement in Quality of Life (QoL) and clinical severity, assessed using validated scores. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled Odds Ratios (ORs).
Nine studies enrolling 1,954 patients were included; re-intervention data for the primary outcome were available for 1,830 patients (916 hybrid; 914 standard). Meta-analysis showed that hybrid treatment significantly reduced the need for re-intervention compared with standard treatment, with a pooled OR of 0.15 (95% CI: 0.04-0.62; p=0.009, I2=93%). Clinical severity scores were significantly lower in the hybrid group, and most studies reported a faster improvement in QoL. Complications were uncommon and similarly distributed between groups.
Hybrid treatment appears to reduce re-intervention rates compared with isolated saphenous trunk ablation and may accelerate clinical improvement. This strategy should be considered a preferred approach in patients with saphenous insufficiency and significant tributary varicose veins.
Downloads
1. Rabe E, Guex JJ, Puskas A, et al. Epidemiology of chronic venous disorders in geographically diverse populations: results from the Vein Consult Program. Int Angiol 2012;31:105-15.
2. Eklöf B, Rutherford RB, Bergan JJ, et al. Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: consensus statement. J Vasc Surg 2004;40:1248-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2004.09.027
3. Carradice D, Chetter IC. Modelling the effect of varicose vein surgery on quality of life. Phlebology 2012;27:30-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1258/phleb.2011.011014
4. Onida S, Davies AH. Predicted burden of venous disease. Phlebology 2016;31:74-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0268355516628359
5. Bergan JJ, Schmid-Schönbein GW, Smith PD, et al. Chronic venous disease. N Engl J Med 2006;355:488-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra055289
6. Raffetto JD, Mannello F. Pathophysiology of chronic venous disease. Int Angiol 2014;33:212-21.
7. Dwerryhouse S, Davies B, Harradine K, Earnshaw JJ. Stripping the long saphenous vein reduces the rate of reoperation for recurrent varicose veins: five-year results of a randomized trial. J Vasc Surg 1999;29:589-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0741-5214(99)70302-2
8. Gloviczki P, Comerota AJ, Dalsing MC, et al. The care of patients with varicose veins and associated chronic venous diseases: clinical practice guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum. J Vasc Surg 2011;53:2-48S. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2011.01.079
9. Wittens C, Davies AH, Bækgaard N, et al. Management of chronic venous disease: clinical practice guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2015;49:678-737. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.02.007
10. Van der Velden SK, Lawaetz M, De Maeseneer MG, et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial of conventional surgery, endovenous laser ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy in patients with great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg 2015;102:1184-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9867
11. Theivacumar NS, Dellagrammaticas D, Darwood RJ, et al. Fate of the great saphenous vein following endovenous laser ablation: does re-canalisation mean recurrence? Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008;36:211-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2008.03.014
12. Hager ES, Ozvath KJ, Dillavou ED. Evidence summary of combined saphenous ablation and treatment of varicosities versus staged phlebectomy JVS-Venous and Lymphatic Disorders 2017;5:P134-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvsv.2016.07.009
13. Aherne TM, Ryan EJ, Boland MR, et al. Concomitant vs staged treatment of varicose tributaries as an adjunct to endovenous ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2020;60:430-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2020.05.028
14. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
15. Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
16. Mohamed A, Leung C, Hitchman L, et al. A prospective observational cohort study of concomitant versus sequential phlebectomy for tributary varicosities following axial mechanochemical ablation. Phlebology 2019;34:627-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0268355519835625
17. Wang JC, Li Y, Li GY, et al. A comparison of concomitant tributary laser ablation and foam sclerotherapy in patients undergoing truncal endovenous laser ablation for lower limb varicose veins. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018;29:781-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2018.01.774
18. Lane TR, Kelleher D, Shepherd AC, et al. Ambulatory varicosity avulsion later or synchronized (AVULS): a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 2015;261:654-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000790
19. El-Sheikha J, Nandhra S, Carradice D, et al. Clinical outcomes and quality of life 5 years after a randomized trial of concomitant or sequential phlebectomy following endovenous laser ablation for varicose veins. Br J Surg 2014;101:1093-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9565
20. Harlander-Locke M, Jimenez JC, Lawrence PF, et al. Endovenous ablation with concomitant phlebectomy is a safe and effective method of treatment for symptomatic patients with axial reflux and large incompetent tributaries. J Vasc Surg 2013;58:166-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2012.12.054
21. Hicks CW, DiBrito SR, Schneider EB, et al. Radiofrequency ablation with concomitant stab phlebectomy increases risk of endovenous heat-induced thrombosis. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2017;5:200-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvsv.2016.10.081
22. Kim HK, Kim HJ, Shim JH, et al. Endovenous lasering versus ambulatory phlebectomy of varicose tributaries in conjunction with endovenous laser treatment of the great or small saphenous vein. Ann Vasc Surg 2009;23:207-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2008.05.014
23. Theivacumar NS, Dellagrammaticas D, Mavor AI, Gough MJ. Endovenous laser ablation: does standard above-knee great saphenous vein ablation provide optimum results in patients with both above- and below-knee reflux? A randomized controlled trial. J Vasc Surg 2008;48:173-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2008.01.062
24. Welch HJ Endovenous ablation of the great saphenous vein may avert phlebectomy for branch varicose veins. J Vasc Surg 2006;44:601-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2006.06.003
25. De Maeseneer MG, Kakkos SK, Aherne T, et al. Editor’s Choice – European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2022 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Chronic Venous Disease of the Lower Limbs. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2022;63:184-267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2022.06.022
26. Rahman T, Noronen K, Vähäaho S, et al. Three-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial comparing concomitant and staged treatment of varicose veins following mechanochemical ablation of the great saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2025;13:102255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvsv.2025.102255
27. García-Gimeno M, Rodríguez-Camarero S, Tagarro-Villalba S, et al. Reflux patterns and risk factors of primary varicose veins’ clinical severity. Phlebology 2013;28:153-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1258/phleb.2011.011114
28. Tan MKH, Davies AH, Gohel MS, et al. A systematic review of anatomical reflux patterns in primary chronic venous disease. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2024;12:101946. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvsv.2024.101946
29. Gianesini S, Menegatti E, Zuolo M, et al. Laser-assisted strategy for reflux abolition in a modified CHIVA approach. Veins and Lymphatics 2015;4:5246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/vl.2015.5246
30. Zini F, Tessari L, Torre R. Sclerofoam assisted laser therapy for saphenous refluxes: an innovative tumescence-free technique. Veins and Lymphatics 2015;4:5141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/vl.2015.5141
31. Ricci S. The sapheno femoral junction involvement in the treatment of varicose veins disease. Veins and Lymphatics. 2017;6:6822. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/vl.2017.6822
32. Franceschi C. Ethics and rationale for sparing the saphenous vein. Veins and Lymphatics 2022;11:10809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/vl.2022.10809
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
