Endophlebectomy of the common femoral vein and arteriovenous fistula creation as adjuncts to venous stenting for post‐thrombotic syndrome. BJS 2017; 104: 718-725.
Published: 21st February 2017
Authors: M. A. F. de Wolf, H. Jalaie, J. H. H. van Laanen, R. L. M. Kurstjens, M. J. S. Mensinck, M. J. de Geus et al.
Good results have been reported for angioplasty and stenting of post‐thrombotic lesions of the iliac and proximal femoral veins. If lesions at the origin of the superficial femoral and profunda veins are stented, the intraluminal synechiae can be pushed against the orifices of inflow vessels, potentially decreasing stent inflow. Surgical disobliteration of the common femoral vein (endophlebectomy) has been suggested to mitigate this problem. Because of a temporary increase in thrombogenicity, this procedure may be accompanied by arteriovenous fistula creation.
Data on consecutive patients treated by hybrid venous reconstruction, between December 2010 and May 2015, were analysed. Standard recording consisted of clinical scoring systems (including Villalta scale) and imaging. Patency was assessed with duplex ultrasonography.
Seventy‐six legs (70 patients) were included. Median follow‐up was 379 (range 73–1508) days. Primary, assisted primary and secondary patency rates at 12 months were 51, 70 and 83 per cent respectively. Sixty per cent of loss of primary patency (24 of 40 legs) was related to common femoral vein stenosis, and the rest to rethrombosis. Other complications included wound infection (29 per cent) and lymphatic leak (39 per cent). The Villalta score had decreased by a median of 7 points at 1‐year follow‐up.
The combination of venous stenting, endophlebectomy and arteriovenous fistula creation for patients with extensive post‐thrombotic vein damage and severe post‐thrombotic syndrome is feasible.Full text
You may also be interested in
Authors: K. Heikkila, I. M. Loftus, D. C. Mitchell, A. S. Johal, S. Waton, D. A. Cromwell et al.
Notes: lower than previously estimated
Cost‐effectiveness of population‐based vascular disease screening and intervention in men from the Viborg Vascular (VIVA) trial.
Authors: R. Søgaard, J. S. Lindholt
Notes: Highly cost effective
Five‐year follow‐up of a randomized clinical trial comparing open surgery, foam sclerotherapy and endovenous laser ablation for great saphenous varicose veins. BJS 2018; 105: 686-691.
Authors: S. Vähäaho, K. Halmesmäki, A. Albäck, E. Saarinen, M. Venermo
Notes: More foam recurrences
Eight‐year follow‐up of a randomized clinical trial comparing ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy with surgical stripping of the great saphenous vein. BJS 2018; 105: 692-698.
Authors: Y. L. Lam, J. A. Lawson, I. M. Toonder, N. H. Shadid, A. Sommer, M. Veenstra et al.
Notes: Surgery better
Authors: M. J. Sweeting, P. Ulug, J. Roy, R. Hultgren, R. Indrakusuma, R. Balm et al.
Notes: Not much help
Follow‐up after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair can be stratified based on first postoperative imaging. BJS 2018; 105: 709-718.
Authors: H. Baderkhan, O. Haller, A. Wanhainen, M. Björck, K. Mani
Notes: Short sealing zones spell trouble
Risk of major amputation in patients with intermittent claudication undergoing early revascularization. BJS 2018; 105: 699-708.
Authors: J. Golledge, J. V. Moxon, S. Rowbotham, J. Pinchbeck, L. Yip, R. Velu et al.
Notes: Early revascularization associated with amputation
Authors: R. E. Clough, R. Spear, K. Van Calster, A. Hertault, R. Azzaoui, J. Sobocinski et al.
Notes: Encouraging results in expert hands
Authors: N. Rudarakanchana, M. P. Jenkins
Notes: Formidable challenge
Cellular and molecular imaging of the arteries in the age of precision medicine. BJS 2018; 105: 311-312.
Authors: R. O. Forsythe, D. E. Newby
Comparative analysis of the outcomes of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in England and Sweden. BJS 2018; 105: 520-528.
Authors: A. Karthikesalingam, M. J. Grima, P. J. Holt, A. Vidal‐Diez, M. M. Thompson, A. Wanhainen et al.
Notes: Improving in England
Participation in bowel screening among men attending abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. BJS 2018; 105: 529-534.
Authors: A. J. Quyn, C. G. Fraser, J. Rodger, A. Digan, A. S. Anderson, R. J. C. Steele et al.
Notes: Maximizing screening benefits