Systematic review and meta-analysis of management of incompetent perforators in patients with chronic venous insufficiency.

Objective: Incompetent perforator veins (IPVs) contribute to venous pathology and are surgically treated based on hemodynamic measurements, size, and the CEAP (Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical, and Pathophysiological) classification. The objective of the present study was to systematically review and synthesize the current literature regarding the surgical management of IPVs, including open ligation, subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery (SEPS), endovascular laser ablation, ultrasound-guided sclerotherapy, and radiofrequency ablation.

Methods: English-language literature reported before November 2021 was reviewed from the PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for primary studies reporting safety and efficacy outcomes in the surgical treatment of IPVs. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for comparative studies and a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for noncomparative studies. A random effects model was used to pool the effect sizes for efficacy outcomes of wound healing and freedom from wound recurrence.

Results: A total of 81 studies were included for qualitative synthesis, representing 7010 patients, with a mean age of 54.7 years. The overall evidence quality was low to intermediate, with a moderate to high risk of bias in the comparative studies. An 11.3% complication rate was found across the interventions, with no reported incidence of stroke or air embolism. Regarding efficacy, the pooled estimates for short-term (≤1 year) wound healing were 99.9% for ultrasound-guided sclerotherapy (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81%-1%), 72.2% for open ligation (95% CI, 0.04%-0.94%), and 96.0% for SEPS (95% CI, 0.79%-0.99%). For short-term freedom from wound recurrence, the pooled estimate for SEPS was 91.0% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.99%).

Conclusions: The current evidence regarding the treatment of IPVs is limited owing to the low adherence to reporting standards in the observational studies and the lack of randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment in the comparative studies. Additional comparative studies are needed to guide clinical decision-making regarding the invasive treatment options for IPVs.