Endovenous ablation of the great saphenous varicose veins: Does the modality matter? A prospective cohort study

Abstract

Objective

Endovenous thermoablation (EVTA) is considered the reference treatment for great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux. Catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy offers a simpler and potentially safer alternative without thermal injury or tumescent anesthesia. This study compared the anatomical durability, clinical outcomes, and safety of EVTA and catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy for treatment of GSV insufficiency.

Methods

A prospective comparative study was conducted at a single tertiary center between April 2021 and June 2024, including patients with duplex-confirmed GSV reflux (CEAP C2–C4). Patients underwent EVTA (radiofrequency or laser ablation) or catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy according to clinical preference and device availability. The primary endpoint was anatomical success defined as complete GSV occlusion at 1 year on duplex ultrasound. Secondary outcomes included changes in Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), Venous Disability Score (VDS), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), perioperative outcomes, and complications. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to compare occlusion durability.

Results

A total of 250 patients were included (118 foam sclerotherapy, 132 EVTA). Baseline demographics and disease severity were similar between groups. Both treatments produced significant improvements in VCSS, VDS and AVVQ at 1 year follow-up (all p < .001), with no significant differences between groups in clinical or quality-of-life outcomes. EVTA demonstrated superior anatomical durability, with 1-year occlusion rates of 93.5% compared with 81.5% after foam sclerotherapy (log-rank p = .003). Treatment modality was the only independent predictor of recanalization on multivariable analysis. Perioperative pain, recovery time, and sick leave were comparable between groups. Sensory nerve injury occurred in 6.3% of EVTA patients and in none of those treated with sclerotherapy (p = .053). At 1-month follow-up, absence of visible/residual varicosities was observed in 97.0% of EVTA-treated limbs and 88.1% of limbs treated with catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy, while clinical scores and quality-of-life outcomes improved significantly in both groups. Sensory nerve injury occurred only after EVTA and was not observed after foam sclerotherapy.

Conclusions

EVTA provides greater anatomical durability than catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy for treatment of GSV reflux. However, both techniques result in comparable improvements in symptoms, disability, quality of life, and clinical appearance of varicosities. Foam sclerotherapy may offer a safe, less resource-intensive, and potentially cost-effective alternative for selected patients or in resource-limited settings.

Keywords

chronic venous insufficiency ultrasonography Doppler duplex venous clinical severity score minimally invasive surgical procedures ambulatory surgical procedures

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Eberhardt

Raffetto

. Chronic venous insufficiency. Circulation 2014; 130(4): 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006898

Shahat

. Catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy in chronic venous insufficiency patients with active ulcer single-center experience. Indian J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2021; 8(Suppl 2): S137–S141. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijves.ijves_44_21

Whiteley

Shiangoli

Dos Santos

, et al. Fifteen year results of radiofrequency ablation, using VNUS closure, for the abolition of truncal venous reflux in patients with varicose veins. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2017; 54(3): 357–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.06.001

Luebke

Brunkwall

. Cost-effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein in patients with uncomplicated primary varicosis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2015; 15(1): 138. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-015-0130-1

Cavezzi

Tessari

. Foam sclerotherapy techniques: different gases and methods of preparation, catheter versus direct injection. Phlebology 2009; 24(6): 247–251. https://doi.org/10.1258/phleb.2009.009061

Lim

Tan

JXD

D’Cruz

, et al. Catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy, an alternative to ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for varicose vein treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Phlebology 2020; 35(6): 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268355519898309

Georgakarakos

Dimitriadis

Tasopoulou

, et al. Customizing foam sclerotherapy of the great saphenous vein: a proposed algorithm to enhance technical efficacy. Vascular 2024; 32(4): 900–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381231161856

Cavezzi

Mosti

Campana

, et al. Catheter foam sclerotherapy of the great saphenous vein, with perisaphenous tumescence infiltration and saphenous irrigation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2017; 54(5): 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.08.004

Venermo

Saarinen

Eskelinen

, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing surgery, endovenous laser ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. J Br Surg 2016; 103(11): 1438–1444. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10260

10.

Mishra

Soni

Mohil

, et al. Comparative study of outcome of duplex ultrasound-guided, catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy and radio-frequency ablation in the management of great saphenous varicose veins. Indian J Surg 2016; 78(5): 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-016-1485-y

11.

Tekin

Aİ

Tuncer

Memetoğlu

, et al. Nonthermal, nontumescent endovenous treatment of varicose veins. Ann Vasc Surg 2016; 36: 231–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2016.03.005

12.

Nordon

Hinchliffe

Brar

, et al. A prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial of radiofrequency versus laser treatment of the great saphenous vein in patients with varicose veins. Ann Surg 2011; 254(6): 876–881. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318230af5a

13.

De Maeseneer

Pichot

Cavezzi

, et al. Duplex ultrasound investigation of the veins of the lower limbs after treatment for varicose veins - UIP consensus document. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 42(1): 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.03.013

14.

Coleridge-Smith

Labropoulos

Partsch

, et al. Duplex ultrasound investigation of the veins in chronic venous disease of the lower limbs--UIP consensus document. Part I. Basic principles. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2006; 31(1): 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2005.07.019

15.

Rutherford

Padberg

Comerota

, et al. Venous severity scoring: an adjunct to venous outcome assessment. J Vasc Surg 2000; 31(6): 1307–1312. https://doi.org/10.1067/mva.2000.107094

16.

Garratt

Macdonald

Ruta

, et al. Towards measurement of outcome for patients with varicose veins. Quality in Health Care 1993; 2(1): 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2.1.5

17.

van den Bos

Kockaert

Neumann

HAM

, et al. Technical review of endovenous laser therapy for varicose veins. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008; 35(1): 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2007.08.005

18.

Min

Khilnani

Zimmet

. Endovenous laser treatment of saphenous vein reflux: long-term results. J Vasc Intervent Radiol 2003; 14(8): 991–996. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000082864.05622.E4

19.

Manfrini

Gasbarro

Danielsson

, et al. Endovenous management of saphenous vein reflux. J Vasc Surg 2000; 32(2): 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1067/mva.2000.107573

20.

Brittenden

Cooper

Dimitrova

, et al. Five-year outcomes of a randomized trial of treatments for varicose veins. N Engl J Med 2019; 381(10): 912–922. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1805186

21.

Meissner

Moneta

Burnand

, et al. The hemodynamics and diagnosis of venous disease. J Vasc Surg 2007; 46(6): S4–S24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2007.09.043

22.

Gao

Qian

Wang

, et al. Strategies and challenges in treatment of varicose veins and venous insufficiency. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(18): 5946–5956. https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i18.5946

23.

Farah

Nayfeh

Urtecho

, et al. A systematic review supporting the society for vascular surgery, the American venous forum, and the American vein and lymphatic society guidelines on the management of varicose veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2022; 10(5): 1155–1171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvsv.2021.08.011

24.

Gloviczki

Lawrence

Wasan

, et al. The 2023 society for vascular surgery, American venous forum, and American vein and lymphatic society clinical practice guidelines for the management of varicose veins of the lower extremities. Part II. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2024; 12(1): 101670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvsv.2023.08.011

25.

Lim

AJK

Twomey

. Clinical effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes of endovenous ablation and surgical stripping in varicose vein management: a systematic review. BMC Surg 2025; 26(1): 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-025-03269-x

26.

Guo

Zhang

Guo

, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of cyanoacrylate ablation over endovenous thermal ablation for treating incompetent saphenous veins. Phlebology: The Journal of Venous Disease 2021; 36(8): 597–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683555211008762

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.27 MB