Lipedema symptoms are not influenced by endothermal ablation in patients with varicose veins

Abstract

Background

Endothermal ablation (ETA) is a well-established treatment for chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). However, its effectiveness in patients with concomitant lipedema remains poorly described. Given the distinct pathophysiological features and symptom burden of lipedema, outcomes may differ in this subgroup.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients with CVI alone and those with CVI plus lipedema. All patients underwent ETA, with adjunctive phlebectomies as indicated. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed using the EQ-5D-VAS and CIVIQ-20 questionnaires before surgery and at 3 months postoperatively. Demographic and clinical variables included age, body mass index (BMI), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and symptom profile. The primary outcome was the change in CIVIQ-20 score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in EQ-5D-VAS and postoperative complications (hematoma, paresthesia, superficial and deep vein thrombosis).

Results

A total of 48 patients were included (32 with CVI alone, 16 with CVI and lipedema). Preoperative QoL impairment was significantly greater in the lipedema cohort (median CIVIQ-20: 61.0 [49.5–69.5]) compared with CVI alone (46.0 [33.0–56.0], p = .001). At 3 months, both groups demonstrated significant improvement (p < .001 for within-group change). However, the magnitude of improvement was greater in CVI alone (median reduction: −13.5 [−19.5 to −5.0]) than in CVI plus lipedema (−4.0 [−7.0 to −1.5]; p = .012). Multivariable regression identified higher baseline CIVIQ-20 (β = 0.60; SE = 0.09; p < .001) and lipedema status (β = 12.44; SE = 2.43; p < .001) as independent predictors of poorer postoperative CIVIQ-20 outcomes. Paresthesia was more frequent in lipedema patients (25.0% vs 18.8% at 1 month; 12.5% vs 6.2% at 3 months).

Conclusion

While ETA significantly improves QoL in patients with CVI, those with concomitant lipedema experience smaller gains and a higher rate of postoperative paresthesia. These findings highlight the importance of setting realistic expectations and counseling lipedema patients regarding potential outcomes of venous interventions.