Purpose: To report the use of adjunctive venography for the treatment of superficial venous reflux. Methods: Two hundred consecutive patients (mean age 60.9 years, range 33–86; 128 women) with chronic venous disease underwent saphenous or perforator vein ablation in 268 limbs (305 venous trunks) guided by adjunctive venography and fluoroscopy in addition to ultrasound between October 2010 and May 2016. Intraprocedural venograms were independently evaluated by 2 vascular specialists to identify the presence of venous anomalies and the need for fluoroscopy-guided maneuvers to successfully complete venous ablation. Intraprocedural venography results were compared with preoperative venous duplex scan reports to ascertain if the duplex study could be of value in identifying preoperatively any anatomical variants that may pose a technical challenge to the operator. Results: In this cohort, 542 venograms (2.0/limb) were performed with a mean duration of 4.9±9.1 minutes (range 1–48). Two thirds of patients (132, 66%) had anomalies or abnormalities within the target vein; more than a third (88, 44%) required an endovascular maneuver to successfully complete the ablation and 17% (34) of cases were impossible to complete without adjunctive fluoroscopic guidance. Per-patient comparison of intraprocedural venography with preoperative venous duplex reports identified 21 (11%) patients with abnormalities detected on ultrasound (23 anomalies) compared with 123 (64%) on venography (193 anomalies). This gave ultrasound a 17.1% sensitivity, 100% specificity and positive predictive value, and 40.7% negative predictive value. Conclusion: Venography is a valuable addition to ultrasound to facilitate complete ablation of insufficient saphenous veins in selected patients with complex anatomy.
EvansCJFowkesFGRuckleyCV. Prevalence of varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency in men and women in the general population: Edinburgh Vein Study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53:149–153.
2.
McLaffertyRBPassmanMACapriniJA. Increasing awareness about venous disease: the American Venous Forum expands the National Venous Screening Program. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48:394–399.
3.
O’DonnellTFPassmanMAMarstonWA. Management of venous leg ulcers: Clinical practice guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(2 suppl):3S–59S.
4.
BerganJJSchmid-SchönbeinGWSmithPD. Chronic venous disease. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:488–498.
5.
CampbellWBDecaluweHMacintyreJB. Most patients with varicose veins have fears or concerns about the future, in addition to their presenting symptoms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006;31:332–334.
6.
YaoJS.Varicose veins. Asian J Surg. 2003;26:59–61.
7.
CheatleT.The long saphenous vein: to strip or not to strip?Semin Vasc Surg. 2005;18:10–14.
8.
LabropoulosNLeonMNicolaidesAN. Superficial venous insufficiency: correlation of anatomic extent of reflux with clinical symptoms and signs. J Vasc Surg. 1994;20:953–958.
9.
MorrisonN.Saphenous ablation: what are the choices, laser or RF energy. Semin Vasc Surg. 2005;18:15–18.
10.
MorrisonNGibsonKMcEnroeS. Randomized trial comparing cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation for incompetent great saphenous veins (VeClose). J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:985–994.
11.
PavlovicMDSchuller-PetrovicSPichotO. Guidelines of the First International Consensus Conference on Endovenous Thermal Ablation for Varicose Vein Disease—ETAV Consensus Meeting 2012. Phlebology. 2015;30:257–273.
12.
NordonIMHinchliffeRJBrarR. 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;254:876–881.
13.
JohnsonCMMcLaffertyRB.Endovenous laser ablation of varicose veins: review of current technologies and clinical outcome. Vascular. 2007;15:250–254.
14.
KnuttinenMGXieKJaniA. Pelvic venous insufficiency: imaging diagnosis, treatment approaches, and therapeutic issues. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:448–458.
15.
HartungO.Embolization is essential in the treatment of leg varicosities due to pelvic venous insufficiency. Phlebology. 2015;30:81–85.
16.
NassiriNCirillo-PennNCThomasJ.Evaluation and management of congenital peripheral arteriovenous malformations. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:1667–1676.
17.
MousaAYAbuRahmaAF.May-Thurner syndrome: update and review. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013;27:984–995.
18.
GillespieDLVillavicencioJLGallagherC. Presentation and management of venous aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 1997;26:845–852.
19.
NeglenPRajuS.A comparison between descending phlebography and duplex Doppler investigation in the evaluation of reflux in chronic venous insufficiency: a challenge to phlebography as the “gold standard”. J Vasc Surg. 1992;16:687–693.
20.
Coleridge-SmithPLabropoulosNPartschH. 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;31:83–92.
JohnsonDRKyriouJMortonEJ. Radiation protection in interventional radiology. Clin Radiol. 2001;56:99–106.
23.
HartDHillierMCWallBF.Doses to Patients From Medical and Dental X-ray Examinations in UK—2000 Review. Chilton, UK: National Radiological Protection Board; 2002.
