Non-tumescent Techniques Research Articles

Laser-sclerosing foam hybrid treatment, a non-tumescent technique for insufficient great saphenous vein ablation.

We aim to report on the Laser-Sclerosing Foam Hybrid Treatment (LSFHT) and its outcomes when used on patients with great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency. This was a single center retrospective cohort study on patients with GSV insufficiency that were treated with the LSFHT technique, a surgical procedure that comprises the use of both sclerosing foam and endovenous ablation and avoids the use of tumescent anesthesia. Occlusion rates and complications were reported. 139 legs from 106 patients were operated, achieving a 100% occlusion rate, while only a small burn and 2 popliteal vein thrombosis cases occurred. The study suggests that the LSFHT is a feasible fast procedure that proved both effective and safe for the treatment of GSV insufficiency.

Third-generation treatment of varicose veins: cyanoacrylate adhesive closure and mechanochemical ablation

Background: The mainstream of incompetent saphenous veins treatment has dramatically changed from the first-generation conventional high ligation and stripping surgery to the second-generation endovenous thermal ablation as a minimally invasive technique using laser or radiofrequency. The third-generation treatment of nonthermal non-tumescent techniques is already available, including cyanoacrylate adhesive closure (CAC) and mechanochemical ablation (MOCA).Current Concepts: The non-thermal non-tumescent techniques are developed to overcome the complications of thermal ablation, including nerve injury and vein perforation. The technique also reduces the need for painful tumescent anesthesia and postoperative compression. MOCA employs a dual injury using a single-catheter-based delivery system consisting of a mechanical abrasion with a rotating wire and chemical ablation with a sclerosant. CAC is executed by injecting a glue that produces a polymer with the blood and obliterates the lumen. CAC does not need tumescent anesthesia and postoperative compression. Therefore, patient recovery is fast and satisfaction is excellent. However, the new devices are expensive and not included in the medical insurance in Korea, and long-term effects of the new treatments are unproven; therefore, the cost-effectiveness is unconfirmed.Discussion and Conclusion: MOCA and CAC are newly developed minimal invasive treatments for varicose veins. They are reported to be safe and effective techniques. However, further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

A multicenter randomized controlled trial of cyanoacrylate closure and surgical stripping for incompetent great saphenous veins

ObjectiveThe treatment of varicose veins has shifted from conventional surgical stripping (SS) to minimally invasive endovenous modalities. Cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) with the VenaSeal system (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) has increased in popularity owing to its nonthermal and nontumescent technique. The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes of CAC and SS for the treatment of incompetent great saphenous veins. MethodsAn open-label, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted. The subjects were randomized to either the CAC or SS procedure. The primary endpoint of the present study was to evaluate complete closure of the target vein at 3 months. Target vein occlusion was assessed on the third day and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using duplex ultrasound. The pain and ecchymosis grades were also assessed. Additionally, the clinical outcomes, such as the venous clinical severity score and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score, were assessed. ResultsThree-month follow-up data were obtained for all 126 enrolled and randomized subjects (63 with CAC and 63 with SS). At 3 months, complete target vein closure was observed in both groups. The postoperative pain score was significantly better in the CAC group than in the SS group (0.3 ± 0.6 in the CAC group and 1.1 ± 1.5 in the SS group; P < .001). In addition, the mean ecchymosis grade was 0.3 ± 0.5 in the CAC group and 1.1 ± 1.1 in the SS group (P < .001). The venous clinical severity score and quality of life had improved equally in both groups. The adverse events after both procedures were mostly minor complications (9 events in CAC group and 20 events in SS group). Major complications occurred in one patient who had undergone the SS procedure. ConclusionsThe CAC and SS procedures were both associated with complete occlusion of the target vein at 3 months. The postoperative pain and ecchymosis grades were significantly lower in the CAC group. Other differences between the two groups included the frequency and nature of the complications. The results showed that CAC has high success with few complications.

Inframalleolar access in endovenous treatment of venous ulcers and C5 disease with nonthermal nontumescent techniques

PurposeTo evaluate the use of inframalleolar access for endovenous ablation when treating advanced venous disease with nonthermal nontumescent (NTNT) techniques. MethodsThis single-center retrospective study included 109 patients with advanced venous disease, treated using inframalleolar access between May 2018 and March 2020. NTNT techniques included ClariVein (Merit Medical Systems, South Jordan, Utah) and ScleroSafe (VVT Medical, Kefar Sava, Israel). Outcomes measured were postprocedure pain, leg edema, ulcer healing and recurrence rates, and venous insufficiency recurrence. ResultsSeventy-seven patients (70%) were treated with ClariVein and 32 (30%) with ScleroSafe. Postprocedure pain score (range, 0-10) after 1 week decreased from a preprocedure median of 5 (interquartile range, 3-6) to 1 ((interqartiel range, 0-2) (P = .0001). Complete wound healing was achieved in 38 patients (43.7%) after 30 days and in 71 patients (81.6%) after 90 days. One patient developed an ulcer recurrence and six developed venous insufficiency recurrence. There was no reported nerve or skin injuries. ConclusionsNTNT ablation techniques using inframalleolar access are effective and safe without risk of nerve damage. Their use facilitates ulcer healing and limits pain in patients with advanced disease.

English

BACKGROUND The study was started with the aim to determine take up rate in tumescent technique compared to non-tumescent technique for harvesting split skin graft. Tumescent technique has been practiced for over forty years especially in liposuction. Tumescent anaesthesia is a combination of crystalloid, lignocaine, adrenaline and sodium bicarbonate. Using tumescent local anaesthesia for harvesting a split thickness skin graft is not in much practise. This study was designed to provide strong evidence of this technique. METHODS This was an observational study. Two treatment groups of patients, tumescent (group A, N = 21) and non-tumescent technique (group B, N =21), who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned. Tumescent technique involved administration of Klein’s formula. No prior administration of agent was performed in non-tumescent technique. The recipient site was opened in both groups on the fifth day after surgery and take rate assessed. RESULTS The difference in take up rate between the two groups was found to be statistically significant. Compared to the patients in group B, patients who underwent tumescent technique (group A) had higher take up rate (&gt; 12 %, P = 0.005). We did not find any statistically significant difference in donor site percentage healing between the tumescent and non-tumescent groups, P = 0.379. CONCLUSIONS Tumescent technique gives better take up results and is more effective than nontumescent technique in harvesting split skin graft. The subdermal injection creates a smooth, dense surface which assists donor harvesting. This can be implemented preoperatively in split-thickness skin grafting. KEYWORDS Split Skin Graft, Take Up Rate, Harvesting, Tumescent, Non-Tumescent, Local Anaesthesia

Automatic Sclerosant Injection Technique of Mechanochemical Ablation with ClariVein Using a Syringe Pump for the Treatment of Varicose Veins.

Mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) is a non-thermal, non-tumescent technique for the treatment of incompetent saphenous vein. It is sometimes difficult to maintain consistency when simultaneously implementing wire rotation, sclerosant injection, and wire pullback. Here, we report a simple technique for achieving constant injection during MOCA with the help of a syringe pump; thus, the operator can focus on wire pullback only with convenience and consistency.

NTNT Methods – Efficacy and Safety Issue

AbstractThe management of elimination of the pathological reflux in the saphenous vein has been developed recently by introducing the endovenous thermal techniques (EVTA), which have become the first line treatment. However, thermal techniques require tumescent infiltration, what may be the cause of discomfort. Furthermore, the use of EVTA has a potential risk of thermal damage of superficial nerves and requires to wear stocking after the procedure.Non-thermal non-tumescent techniques (NTNT) were proposed as a valid, safe and effective alternative to EVTA with significant clinical improvement, high complete occlusion rate and high posttreatment patient satisfaction. The most common novel NTNT are catheter-directed cyanoacrylate adhesive closure (CAC) and mechanochemical ablation.In the paper an overview of the currently available data regarding the NTNT efficacy and safety are presented.Based on the literature, NTNT has a high efficacy, comparable with the EVTA techniques, with an acceptable risk increase. However further studies with long-term results are needed also with regard to safety aspects.

Great saphenous vein mechanochemical sclerotherapy versus laser ablation in treatment of varicose vein

Abstract Background Endovenous thermal techniques, such as endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), are the recommended treatment for truncal varicose veins. But it requires the administration of tumescent anaesthesia, which can be uncomfortable. Non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques, such as mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) have some advantages such as less post-procedural pain and less procedure time . MOCA combines physical damage to endothelium using sharply terminated metal claws, with the injection of a liquid sclerosant. Introduction Chronic venous insufficiency is one of the most common medical conditions among highly developed societies. The majority of patients (70%) suffer from saphenous veins incompetency. The aim of this study was to evaluate the primary efficacy of mechanochemical sclerotherapy by phlebogriffe (flebogrif) in comparison to laser ablation in treatment of varicose vein. Methods/Design The study was conducted on 30 patients, including 16 women and 14 men divided into 2 groups. The first group (15 patients) was treated with ablation with Flebogrif (MOCA) to treat varicose veins. The second group (15 patients) was treated with ablation with Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA). All patients were qualified based on the ultrasound in a standing position confirming incompetence of the great saphenous vein or small saphenous vein. The primary outcomes are intra-procedural pain and technical efficacy at 1 year, defined as complete occlusion of target vein segment and assessed using duplex ultrasound. Secondary outcomes are post-procedural pain, analgesia use, procedure time, clinical severity, bruising, complications, satisfaction, time taken to return to daily activities and/or work, and cost-effectiveness analysis following EVLA or MOCA. Both groups will be evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. Results The total primary obliteration rate after 3 days and 1 month was 100% with both EVLA-RTF and MOCA while after 3 months (ms) was 93.3% with both groups. After 6ms the total primary obliteration rate was 93.3% with EVLA-RTF and 86.7% with MOCA. The Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) presented similar and durable improvements in both groups between 3days and 6 months. While there is significant less post procedural pain, ecchymosis and bruises with the MOCA method and so high incidence of use of analgesics in EVLA patients than in MOCA group. The median time for return to work was 1 day after both treatments. No severe adverse events were observed. Discussion The aim of the study is to evaluate whether MOCA is superior to EVLA. The two main hypotheses are that MOCA may cause less initial pain and disability allowing rapid post-operative recovery. The second hypothesis is the efficacy, which may lead to increased recurrence and affect longer term quality of life, increasing the requirement for secondary procedures. Conclusions EVLA and MOCA have similarly high great saphenous vein (GSV) obliteration rates in the long term, and the treatments are equally effective clinically. While according to post procedural pain, ecchymosis, Bruises and long procedural time. The study showed significant high incidence of occurrence in EVLA group than MOCA group. So according to these items there is significant superiority of MOCA over EVLA.

&lt;p&gt;ClariVein&lt;sup&gt;®&lt;/sup&gt;, mechanochemical endovenous ablation: patient selection and perspective&lt;/p&gt;

ClariVeinReg, mechanochemical endovenous ablation: patient selection and perspective Amjad Belramman,1 Roshan Bootun,1,2 Sarah Onida,1,3 Alun H Davies,1,3 Tristan RA Lane1,31Academic Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; 2East of England Deanery Vascular Surgery Training Programme, Cambridge, UK; 3Imperial Vascular Unit, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UKCorrespondence: Tristan RA LaneSection of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, 4N12A, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London W6 8RF, UKEmail tristan.lane@imperial.ac.ukAbstract: The American Venous Forum and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend endothermal ablation (ETA) techniques as the first line treatment for superficial venous incompetence. However, these techniques require the use of tumescent anaesthesia prior to energy delivery, which may be a source of discomfort for the patient and can prolong procedure time. Recently, nonthermal, nontumescent (NTNTs) techniques such as mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) have been developed to address some of the negative aspects associated with ETA. This article reviews this technique from a patient selection and perspective point view.Keywords: endovenous ablation, varicose veins, venous disease, mechanochemical ablation

Evaluation and Management of Chronic Venous Disease Using the Foundation of CEAP.

Venous disease is common. Depending on the population studied, the prevalence may be as high as 80%. Significant chronic venous disease with venous ulcers or trophic skin changes is reported to affect 1-10% of the population. A systematic assessment of the clinical findings associated with chronic venous disease will facilitate appropriate imaging. Based on imaging and assessment, patients with reflux or obstruction can be recommended proper medical and endovascular or surgical management. Many types of endovascular management are available to treat reflux and eliminate varicose veins and tributaries. More recently adopted non-thermal non-tumescent techniques have been shown to be comparable with more widely performed laser or radiofrequency ablation techniques. A thorough clinical assessment, appropriate duplex ultrasound imaging, and use of advanced imaging when needed will allow clinicians to optimize therapy for patients with chronic venous disease based on the etiology, anatomy involved, and the pathophysiology.

Tumescent non-tumescent technique for split thickness skin graft harvesting

Background: Split-thickness skin graft failures can be attributed to flaws in the recipient bed which has to be well prepared. Tissues with limited blood supply such as bone, tendons, cartilage or sites with necrotic tissue or infection do not accept skin grafts. Adrenaline is used to harvest skin grafts due to its vasoconstriction effect which limits blood loss. The aim of our study was to determine skin graft take after tumescent technique compared to a non-tumescent technique for harvesting.Methods: Two treatment groups of patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned. Forty patients underwent split-thickness skin graft harvesting with tumescent technique and forty patients underwent non-tumescent split-thickness skin graft harvesting. The recipient site was opened in both groups on the fifth day after surgery and take rate assessed. The donor site was assessed on day ten and if not healed, followed up for three weeks.Results: There was a statistically significant association between skin graft take rate and skin grafting technique (p=0.011). The mean graft take rate was 2.5% higher in the tumescent group compared to the non-tumescent group (96.3% compared to 94%). On day 10, there was no difference in percentage healing of donor sites between the tumescent and non-tumescent groups, p=0.562.Conclusions: Tumescent technique significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss. It is safe, inexpensive and easy to use. The subdermal adrenaline/saline injection creates a smooth, dense surface which assists debridement and donor harvesting.

Tumescent versus non-tumescent technique in skin graft healing: a cross-sectional study

Background: Skin grafting, especially burn surgery, is associated with great blood loss. Tumescent technique is the subdermal injection of fluid containing a vasoconstrictor prior to burn wound surgery to reduce blood loss. Adrenaline is used to harvest skin grafts due to its vasoconstriction effect which limits blood loss. Although adrenaline is widely used, its local and systemic effects vary from patient to patient. The object of the present study was to observe the efficacy of tumescent technique, using adrenaline, versus non-tumescent technique in the healing of split thickness skin graft donor day 10.Methods: Two treatment groups of patients, tumescent (group A, n = 45) and non-tumescent technique (group B, n = 45), who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned. Tumescent technique involved administration of 1 mg (1:1000) adrenaline in 500 mL of saline. No prior administration of agent was performed in non-tumescent technique. Split-thickness skin grafting was carried out followed by regular inspection of the donor site. Healing rate was recorded at the postoperative day 10 by performing wound tracing technique and evaluated by performing unpaired t-test. P &lt;0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: The mean age of patients was 29.98±12.6 years in group A and 45.36±10.23 years in group B. Age distribution was concentrated between 18 and 38 years. On postoperative day 10, complete epithelialization was observed in 15.56 % and 6.66% of patients in group A and B, respectively. Compared to the patients in group B, patients who underwent tumescent technique (group A) had higher healing rate (&gt;80%, p=0.0134). Evidence of infection in the donor site was absent in both the groups.Conclusions: Tumescent technique by using adrenaline is more effective than non-tumescent technique in the healing of donor site and can be implemented preoperatively in split-thickness skin grafting.

Are non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques more recommended? Endovenous treatment of saphenous veins reflux – methods and results overview and discussion

ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Zieliński A, Świercz P. Are non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques more recommended? Endovenous treatment of saphenous veins reflux – methods and results overview and discussion. Phlebological Review. 2018;26(1):4-9. doi:10.5114/pr.2018.76383. APA Zieliński, A., & Świercz, P. (2018). Are non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques more recommended? Endovenous treatment of saphenous veins reflux – methods and results overview and discussion. Phlebological Review, 26(1), 4-9. https://doi.org/10.5114/pr.2018.76383 Chicago Zieliński, Adam, and Paweł Świercz. 2018. "Are non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques more recommended? Endovenous treatment of saphenous veins reflux – methods and results overview and discussion". Phlebological Review 26 (1): 4-9. doi:10.5114/pr.2018.76383. Harvard Zieliński, A., and Świercz, P. (2018). Are non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques more recommended? Endovenous treatment of saphenous veins reflux – methods and results overview and discussion. Phlebological Review, 26(1), pp.4-9. https://doi.org/10.5114/pr.2018.76383 MLA Zieliński, Adam et al. "Are non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques more recommended? Endovenous treatment of saphenous veins reflux – methods and results overview and discussion." Phlebological Review, vol. 26, no. 1, 2018, pp. 4-9. doi:10.5114/pr.2018.76383. Vancouver Zieliński A, Świercz P. Are non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques more recommended? Endovenous treatment of saphenous veins reflux – methods and results overview and discussion. Phlebological Review. 2018;26(1):4-9. doi:10.5114/pr.2018.76383.

Expert review on the VenaSeal® system for endovenous cyano-acrylate adhesive ablation of incompetent saphenous trunks in patients with varicose veins

ABSTRACTIntroduction: The treatment of incompetent truncal veins has been innovated by the introduction of minimally invasive non-thermal non-tumescent (NTNT) techniques. One of these consists of the use of cyanoacrylate glue to occlude the vein lumen by means of the VenaSeal device.Areas covered: This expert-review aims to evaluate NTNT ablation of incompetent saphenous trunks using the VenaSeal device.Expert commentary: Cyanoacrylate adhesive embolization of incompetent truncal veins using the VenaSeal device is a safe and efficacious innovative technique. Further studies are needed to evaluate anatomical and clinical outcomes at long term.

Endovenous ablation of refluxing saphenous and perforating veins.

Since the end of the nineties endovenous thermal ablation and more recently non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques have been developed and improved. Until now, because of their favourable side effect profile in conjunction to sustained efficacy, in many countries they already replaced high ligation and stripping in the treatment of refluxing saphenous veins as well as for treatment of perforators and selected tributaries. Now, studies and comparative trials are available with long-term follow-ups for most of the techniques, providing valid data on occlusion and reflux rates, side effect profiles, and health related quality of life.

The advent of non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques for treatment of varicose veins.

Varicose veins are common and their management has undergone a number of changes over the years. Surgery has been the traditional treatment option, but towards the 21st century, new endovenous thermal ablation techniques, namely, radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation, were introduced which have revolutionised the way varicose veins are treated. These minimally invasive techniques are associated with earlier return to normal activity and less pain, as well as enabling procedures to be carried out as day cases. They are, however, also known to cause a number of side-effects and involve infiltration of tumescent fluid which can cause discomfort. Non-thermal, non-tumescent methods are believed to be the answer to these unwelcome effects. Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy is one such non-thermal, non-tumescent method and, despite a possible lower occlusion, has been shown to improve the quality of life of patients. The early results of two recently launched non-thermal, non-tumescent methods, mechanochemical ablation and cyanoacrylate glue, are promising and are discussed.

Tumescent Cervicofacial Rhytidectomy

A modification of the tumescent technique for body contouring has been adapted for patients undergoing face lift. Thirty women, average age 56 years, were prospectively studied, with a 1-year follow-up. All surgery was performed in a private ambulatory operating room facility. The patients were under intravenous sedation with a board-certified anesthesiologist in attendance at all times. The preferred solution was 0.3% lidocaine 1/250,000 epinephrine (average volume injected 500 mL). The solution was a mixture of Ringer’s lactate 400 mL plus 2% lidocaine 50 mL and 1% lidocaine 50 mL plus 1:1000 epinephrine 2 mL. The average lidocaine dose per patient was 29.4 mg/kg. Serum lidocaine levels demonstrated a 1-hour peak at 2.7 μg/mL (no value exceeded 3.3 μg/mL). The technique began with superficial liposculpture followed by independent skin-lateral superficial musculoaponeurotic system-ectomy/platysmaplasty with wide skin undermining. Average operating time was 1 hour and 48 minutes. No operative complications were encountered. Excellent anesthetization was achieved in all patients without postoperative hematomas or nerve injuries. Tumescent cervicofacial rhytidectomy has been found to be a safe and effective rhytidectomy procedure that offers several advantages when compared with nontumescent techniques: avoidance of general inhalational agents, reduced operative bleeding and operative time, improved technical ease of superficial liposculpture and surgical dissection, and minimal postoperative bruising and swelling.