Retrograde technique for great saphenous vein ablation using the VenaSeal™ closure system – Ideal approach for deep seated or small below the knee refluxing truncal veins

Abstract

Objectives

The VenaSeal™ closure system (Medtronic, Galway, Ireland) is a novel non-thermal, non-tumescent ablative device that induces endovenous closure by inducing fibrosis of the truncal superficial vein. The conventional IFU antegrade technique is straightforward except when the great saphenous vein is small at the planned access site below the knee, deep, or steeply traverses the fascia making passage of the introducer wire to the groin difficult. We describe our technique for retrograde great saphenous vein puncture, which mitigated these access problems and assessed the effectiveness and outcomes.

Methods

Fourteen patients (14 legs; 14 great saphenous vein) underwent VenaSeal™ ablation via a retrograde puncture, all for great saphenous vein incompetence; 10/14 (71.4%) had C4–C5 disease. Retrograde puncture introduces the VenaSeal™ catheter in a cranial-caudal manner, with the designated puncture site at the most proximal point of the great saphenous vein reflux. Patients were reviewed at 1 week, 3, 6 and 12-months post-procedure. Post-operative outcomes and complications were recorded, along with patient satisfaction.

Results

The most common reason for a retrograde puncture approach was the small great saphenous vein calibre below the knee, in 9/14 (64.3%) patients. There was 100% technical success, with no major complications from the procedure; 11/14 (78.6%) patients tolerated the procedure under local anaesthesia without any sedation. There was 100% Duplex-occlusion rate at 1 week, 3, 6 and 12-months post-procedure.

Conclusion

The retrograde puncture technique for the VenaSeal™ Closure system is safe and effective in ablating the great saphenous vein in patients who are not amendable to the conventional antegrade puncture approach. Patients tolerated this procedure without additional mean operative time and minimal complications. More extensive studies with longer follow-up periods are required to validate the long-term outcomes of this technique.