Location of reflux in the saphenous vein does not affect outcomes of vein ablation.

Background: Varicose veins are commonly caused by valvular reflux in the saphenous vein. Most insurance companies will approve venous ablation (VA) for the treatment of junctional reflux only and will deny coverage for symptomatic patients with significant nonjunctional reflux of the saphenous vein at the deep system. The present study compared the outcomes of VA for patients with junctional reflux and patients with nonjunctional reflux.

Methods: A retrospective, single-center review of consecutive patients who had undergone VA using radiofrequency in an outpatient office was performed from 2012 to 2016. The patients' electronic medical records were reviewed for the characteristics, imaging findings, and outcomes. A telephone survey inquiring about the intensity of symptoms using a numeric rating scale of 0 to 10 before and after treatment was also conducted, with higher number correlating with increasing symptom severity. Patients were grouped according to the location of reflux, either at the saphenofemoral-saphenopopliteal junction or below the junction (nonjunctional). The patient characteristics and outcomes were compared between the two groups. Clinical success was defined by symptom improvement or resolution. Technical success was defined by vein closure on duplex ultrasonography.

Results: A total of 265 patients (224 with junctional reflux [84.5%] and 41 with nonjunctional reflux [15.5%]) had undergone VA of 343 veins. The mean patient age was 58.8 ± 15 years. No differences in age, sex, or race were present between the two groups. Patients with junctional reflux were significantly more likely to have undergone bilateral treatment (33.3% vs 12.2%; P = .006). No difference was found in CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic) class, laterality, or type of vein treated. On ultrasonography, the veins with junctional reflux had significantly larger diameters (5.8 ± 2.1 mm vs 4.8 ± 1.8 mm; P = .004). However, the veins with nonjunctional reflux had a longer reflux time (5.5 ± 0.6 seconds vs 4 ± 1.7 seconds; P < .0001). The clinical success rates, technical success rates, and incidence of complications were not different between patients with junctional reflux and those with nonjunctional reflux. The telephone survey was completed by 217 patients after a mean follow-up of 24.9 ± 11.3 months. The survey results demonstrated no differences in improvement in pain or swelling or recurrence of pain or swelling after 2 years.

Conclusions: Junctional reflux in the saphenous vein is more likely to be bilateral compared with nonjunctional reflux. The location of reflux did not affect patient presentation or outcomes after VA.