Objective: Endothermal ablation is well-established for the treatment of the great and small saphenous veins. Data are lacking for treatment of the anterior accessory saphenous vein (AASV). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of AASV treatment using endothermal ablation.
Methods: This retrospective review included 314 limbs at a single academic institution from 2016 to 2018 using the institutional Vascular Quality Initiative database. All limbs had documented AASV reflux. Baseline characteristics were evaluated including age; sex; ethnicity; clinical, etiology, anatomy, pathophysiology classification; Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS); and vein diameter. Outcomes relating to procedure safety and efficacy included treatment modality and length, successful ablation on postoperative imaging, postprocedural clinical outcomes, incidence of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT), and any postprocedural complication.
Results: A total of 314 consecutive limbs were identified from 2016 to 2018. The preprocedure VCSS scores were available for 312 limbs and averaged 6.13 ± 3.33. A history of varicose veins were reported in all limbs with 49.4% (n = 155) having previously undergone a procedure. The most common presenting symptom was mild edema in 52.5% (n = 165). Vein diameter and assessment of reflux were obtained by venous duplex ultrasound (DUS) examination. The largest AASV diameter was available for 304 limbs, averaging 7.93 ± 2.69 mm. Treatment modalities included radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in 59.2% (n = 186), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) in 37.9% (n = 119), and isolated microphlebectomy in 2.9% (n = 9). In all, 38.5% (n = 121) of limbs underwent concomitant microphlebectomy at the time of EVLA. The total treatment length was obtained in 297 limbs, averaging 23.0 cm ± 12.0. Postoperatively, 94.6% of limbs (n = 297) were prescribed compression stockings. Postoperative DUS examination was performed in 312 limbs, revealing successful ablation in 96.5% (n = 303) with 2 limbs (0.6%) developing an EHIT, both treated with therapeutic enoxaparin for 1 week. Repeat DUS examination revealed thrombus resolution in one limb; the other patient was lost to follow-up. VCSS scores after the procedure were available for 145 limbs and averaged 4.45 ± 2.31. This was a statistically significant decrease from preprocedure VCSS scores (P < .01). Average duration of follow-up was 2.2 years, with two limbs lost to follow-up. Of the nine limbs (3.5%) whose initial procedure failed, five (56%) were treated using RFA and four (44%) were treated using EVLA. There were no other postoperative complications.
Conclusions: Our experience over a 3-year period for treating the AASV shows it to be safe and effective in a broad range of disease severity with an improvement in VCSS and a low incidence of EHIT. Additionally, RFA and EVLA exhibit similar treatment efficacy. Long-term follow-up data are needed.
Keywords: Anterior accessory saphenous vein; Endothermal venous ablation; Superficial venous disease; Venous insufficiency.
Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.