Advertisement

ästhetische dermatologie & kosmetologie

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 30–37 | Cite as

Ist die endovenöse Behandlung besser als die Operation?

Therapie der Varikose

  • Ingo FlessenkämperEmail author
cme fortbildung

Zusammenfassung

Seit der Einführung der endoluminalen Methoden zur Versorgung der Varikose der V. saphena magna sind fast 20 Jahre vergangen, sodass es an der Zeit ist, den initialen Anspruch an diese Methoden an der Erfahrung und aufgearbeiteten Evidenz zu messen. Es liegen Studien vor, aus denen ausreichend Rückschlüsse auf die derzeitige Leistungsfähigkeit der endoluminalen Strategien abzuleiten sind. Die gefundene Evidenz hat manchen Anspruch der neueren Methoden relativiert, aber auch die weitere technische Entwicklung vorangetrieben.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Babcock W. A new operation for exstirpation of varicose veins of the leg. NY Med J. 1907; 86: 153e6Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trendelenburg F. Ueber die Unterbindung der Vena saphena magna bei Unterschenkelvaricen. Beitr Klin Chir. 1891; 7: 195–210Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fischer R et al. Late recurrent saphenofemoral junction reflux after ligation and stripping of the greater saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg. 2001; 34: 236–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nesbitt C et al. Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus open surgery for great saphenous vein varices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd005624.pub3Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Disselhoff BC et al. Five-year results of a randomised clinical trial of endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein with and without ligation of the saphenofemoral junction. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011; 41: 685–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brittenden J et al. A randomized trial comparing treatments for varicose veins. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 1218–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christenson JT et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing endovenous laser ablation and surgery for treatment of primary great saphenous varicose veins with a 2-year follow-up. J Vasc Surg. 2010; 52: 1234–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Disselhoff BC et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser with cryostripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2008; 95: 1232–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flessenkamper I et al. Endovenous laser ablation with and without high ligation compared with high ligation and stripping in the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins: initial results of a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Phlebology. 2013; 28: 16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flessenkamper I et al. Endovenous laser ablation with and without high ligation compared to high ligation and stripping for treatment of great saphenous varicose veins: Results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial with up to 6 years follow-up. Phlebology. 2016; 31: 23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gauw SA et al. Five-year follow-up of a randomized, controlled trial comparing saphenofemoral ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein with endovenous laser ablation (980 nm) using local tumescent anesthesia. J Vasc Surg. 2016; 63: 420–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rasmussen L et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation and stripping of the great saphenous vein with clinical and duplex outcome after 5 years. J Vasc Surg. 2013; 58: 421–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rasmussen LH et al. Randomized trial comparing endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein with high ligation and stripping in patients with varicose veins: short-term results. J Vasc Surg. 2007; 46: 308–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rass K et al. Comparable effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation and high ligation with stripping of the great saphenous vein: two-year results of a randomized clinical trial (RELACS study). Arch Dermatol. 2012; 148: 49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rass K et al. Same site recurrence is more frequent after endovenous laser ablation compared with high ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein: 5 year results of a randomized clinical trial (RELACS study). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015; 50: 648–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Venermo M et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing surgery, endovenous laser ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2016; 103: 1438–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lawson JA et al. Prospective comparative cohort study evaluating incompetent great saphenous vein closure using radiofrequency-powered segmental ablation or 1470-nm endovenous laser ablation with radial-tip fibers (Varico 2 study). J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2017; 6: 31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Donnell TF et al. Recurrence of varicose veins after endovenous ablation of the great saphenous vein in randomized trials. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2016; 4: 97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Almeida JI et al. Cyanoacrylate adhesive for the closure of truncal veins: 60-day swine model results. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2011; 45: 631–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schäffer N et al. Appositionsthrombus als Komplikation endovenöser Katheterverfahren (Post ablation thrombus extension [PATE]). Phlebologie. 2018; https://doi.org/10.12687/phleb2417-2-2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paravastu SC et al. Endovenous ablation therapy (laser or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for short saphenous varicose veins. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010878.pub2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations