Retrograde endovenous laser ablation through saphenopopliteal junctional area for incompetent small saphenous vein: Comparison with antegrade approach

8Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of retrograde endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and to compare it with the conventional antegrade EVLA for incompetent small saphenous vein (SSV). Materials and Methods: Small saphenous vein was cannulated via two approaches under ultrasound-guidance. One method involved puncturing the SSV cranially at mid-calf (the antegrade group). If the antegrade puncture into the SSV failed twice, the other approach for puncture was selected that involved puncturing the SSV toward the ankle (the retrograde group). Patients were evaluated in terms of technical & clinical success, closure rates of the SSV, and complications including pain, bruising, or paresthesia at all follow-up visits. Results: The 1470 nm endovenous laser was used in all limbs. Technical success was seen in all limbs in both groups (100%). Closure rate in both groups showed about 95%, without significant difference (p = 0.685). Similar linear endovenous energy density was supplied during the EVLA in both groups (p = 0.876). Three frequent complications including bruising, pain, and paresthesia did not show statistical significance between groups (p = 0.465, 0.823, 1.000, respectively). Major complications were absent in both groups. Conclusion: The EVLA for the incompetent SSV using a retrograde approach is safe and effective and should be considered the alternative method if the antegrade access fails due to vasospasm or small SSV diameter.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kim, J. S., Park, S. W., Yun, I. J., Hwang, J. J., Lee, S. A., Chee, H. K., & Hwang, J. H. (2016). Retrograde endovenous laser ablation through saphenopopliteal junctional area for incompetent small saphenous vein: Comparison with antegrade approach. Korean Journal of Radiology, 17(3), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.3.364

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free