Department of Surgery, 1140Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Department of Phlebology, Skin and Vein Clinic Oosterwal, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Phlebology. 2022 Apr;37(3):165-179. doi: 10.1177/02683555211060998. Epub 2021 Dec 30.
To investigate and compare the outcomes of the available treatment modalities for anterior accessory saphenous vein (AASV) incompetence.
A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies reporting the outcomes of patients who were treated for primary AASV incompetence were included. The methodologic quality of the articles was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). A random-effects model was used to estimate anatomic success, defined as AASV occlusion. The secondary outcomes were pain during and after treatment, venous clinical severity score, quality of life, esthetic result, time to return to daily activities, and complications.
The search identified 860 articles, of which 16 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 609 AASVs were reported. The included studies were of poor or moderate quality according to MINORS score. The pooled anatomic success rates were 91.8% after endovenous laser ablation and radiofrequency ablation (EVLA, RFA, 11 studies), 93.6% after cyanoacrylate closure (3 studies), and 79.8% after sclerotherapy (2 studies). The non-pooled anatomic success rate was 97.9% after phlebectomy and 82% after CHIVA. Paresthesia was seen after EVLA in 0.7% of patients (6 studies). Phlebitis was seen in 2.6% of patients after RFA (2 studies), 27% after sclerotherapy (1 study), and 12% after the phlebectomy (1 study). Deep venous thrombosis and skin burn did not occur.
Treatment of AASV incompetence is safe and effective. Despite limited evidence, occlusion of the AASV can be achieved with endovenous thermal ablation and cyanoacrylate. There does not appear to be a benefit of EVLA compared to RFA regarding treatment efficacy. Phlebectomy shows promising results if the saphenofemoral junction is competent. Lower results are seen after sclerotherapy and CHIVA. However, studies with sufficient sample sizes of solely treatment of AASV incompetence are needed to draw firm conclusions.
调查和比较治疗前副隐静脉(AASV)功能不全的各种治疗方法的结果。
在 MEDLINE、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆中进行了系统的文献检索。纳入了报告治疗原发性 AASV 功能不全患者结果的研究。使用非随机研究方法学指数(MINORS)评估文章的方法学质量。使用随机效应模型估计解剖成功率,定义为 AASV 闭塞。次要结果为治疗期间和治疗后的疼痛、静脉临床严重程度评分、生活质量、美观效果、恢复日常活动的时间和并发症。
搜索共确定了 860 篇文章,其中 16 篇符合纳入标准。共报告了 609 条 AASV。根据 MINORS 评分,纳入的研究质量较差或中等。静脉内激光消融和射频消融(EVLA、RFA,11 项研究)后解剖成功率的汇总率为 91.8%,氰基丙烯酸酯闭合(3 项研究)后为 93.6%,硬化治疗(2 项研究)后为 79.8%。静脉切除术和 CHIVA 后的非汇总解剖成功率分别为 97.9%和 82%。EVLA 后有 0.7%的患者出现感觉异常(6 项研究)。RFA 后有 2.6%的患者出现静脉炎(2 项研究),硬化治疗后有 27%(1 项研究),静脉切除术后有 12%(1 项研究)出现深静脉血栓形成和皮肤灼伤。
治疗 AASV 功能不全是安全有效的。尽管证据有限,但静脉内热消融和氰基丙烯酸酯可实现 AASV 闭塞。与 RFA 相比,EVLA 的治疗效果似乎没有优势。如果隐股交界处功能正常,静脉切除术显示出有前途的结果。硬化治疗和 CHIVA 的结果较低。然而,需要有足够大的仅治疗 AASV 功能不全的样本量的研究来得出确切的结论。