Phlebologie 2019; 48(01): 39-46
DOI: 10.1055/a-0800-9183
Review
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Therapie des inguinalen Crossenrezidivs: Ist die offene Re-Crossektomie noch zeitgemäß?

Article in several languages: deutsch | English
Stefania Aglaia Gerontopoulou
1   Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Klinik für Dermatologie und Venerologie
,
Knuth Rass
2   Eifelklinik St. Brigida, Zentrum für Venen und periphere Arterien
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

10/07/2018

11/18/2018

Publication Date:
19 February 2019 (online)

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung Die Rezidivvarikose ist trotz der Entwicklung neuer Verfahren und Operationsstrategien ein relevantes medizinisches Problem. Zur Therapie inguinaler Crossenrezidive (ICR) steht die offene Re-Crossektomie zur Verfügung, die derzeit gegenüber weniger invasiven Verfahren in den Hintergrund tritt.

Methoden Diese Übersichtsarbeit basiert auf aktuell verfügbaren Leitlinien und einer Literaturrecherche bei PubMed zur Frage des Einsatzes und der Effektivität verschiedener Verfahren zur Therapie des ICR.

Ergebnisse Inguinale Re-Crossektomie und Schaumsklerosierung sind uneingeschränkt anwendbar. Die Operation, sofern mit Barrieretechnik kombiniert, scheint langfristig effektiver als die Verödung und ist mit einer hohen Patientenzufriedenheit verbunden. Endovenös thermische Ablationsverfahren können für individuelle Fälle mit geeignetem anatomischem Befund eingesetzt werden. Vergleichende Studien fehlen.

Schlussfolgerung Die offene Re-Crossektomie ist zeitgemäß. Ob der Vorteil der potentiell höheren Effektivität bei der Operation stärker wiegt als die geringere Invasivität der Schaumsklerosierung verbunden mit häufigeren Therapiesitzungen müsste mittels randomisierter kontrollierter Studien geklärt werden.

 
  • References/Literatur

  • 1 Rabe E, Guex JJ, Puskas A. et al. VCP Coordinators. E}pidemiology of chronic venous disorders in geographically diverse populations: results from the Vein Consult Program. Int Angiol 2012; 31: 105-115
  • 2 Darvall KA, Bate GR, Adam DJ. et al. Generic health-related quality of life is significantly worse in varicose vein patients with lower limb symptoms independent of CEAP clinical grade. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2012; 44: 341-344
  • 3 Chang SL, Huang YL, Lee MC. et al. Association of varicose veins with incident venous thromboembolism and peripheral artery disease. JAMA 2018; 319: 807-817
  • 4 Kluess HG, Noppeney T, Breu FX. et al. Leitlinie zur Diagnostik und Therapie der Krampfadererkrankung – Entwicklungsstufe S2. Phlebologie 2010; 39: 271-289
  • 5 NICE clinical guideline 168.Varicose veins in the legs – the diagnosis and management of varicose veins. Issued: July 2013 http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG168
  • 6 Wittens C, Davies AH, Bäkgaard N. et al. Management of Chronic Venous Disease; Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2015; 49: 678-737
  • 7 Rass K, Frings N, Glowacki P. 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: 648-656
  • 8 Perrin MR, Guex JJ, Ruckley CV. et al. Recurrent varices after surgery (REVAS), a consensus document. REVAS group. Cardiovasc Surg 2000; 8: 233-245
  • 9 Rass K. Crossektomie und Stripping vs. endothermische Ablation der V. saphena magna: Was können wir aus aktuellen Langzeitanalysen lernen?. Phlebologie 2018; 47: 265-271
  • 10 Theivacumar NS, Darwood R, Gough MJ. Neovascularization and recurrence 2 years after varicose vein treatment for sapheno-femoral and great saphenous vein reflux: a comparison of surgery and endovenous laser ablation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2009; 38: 203-207
  • 11 De Maeseneer MG, Vandenbroeck CP, Hendriks JM. et al. Accuracy of duplex evaluation one year after varicose vein surgery to predict recurrence at the sapheno-femoral junction after five years. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2005; 29: 308-312
  • 12 Geier B, Hummel T, Burger P. Residual stumps as a cause for inguinal varicose vein recurrences: A multicentre study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008; 36 (02) 207-210
  • 13 De Maeseneer MG, Vandenbroeck CP, Van Schil PE. Silicone patch saphenoplasty to prevent repeat recurrence after surgery to treat recurrent saphenofemoral incompetence: Long-term follow-up study. J Vasc Surg 2004; 40 (01) 98-105
  • 14 Freis H, Geier B, Mumme A. et al. Barrier patch implantation during redo surgery for varicose vein recurrences in the groin: 1-year results. Ann Vasc Surg 2016; 35: 98-103
  • 15 Gerontopoulou SA, Kath W, Rass K. Short-Term Efficacy of Inguinal Reoperation for Recurrent Saphenofemoral Incompetence using the Stump Suture Technique. Ann Vasc Surg 2018; pii: S0890–5096(18)30432–1 doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2018.04.015
  • 16 De Maeseneer M. Surgery for recurrent varicose veins: toward a less-invasive approach?. Perspect Vasc Surg Endovasc Ther 2011; 23 (04) 244-249
  • 17 Creton D, Uhl JF. Foam sclerotherapy combined with surgical treatment for recurrent varicose veins: short term results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2007; 33: 619-624
  • 18 Kostas T, Ioannou CV, Touloupakis E. et al. Recurrent varicose veins after surgery: a new appraisal of a common and complex problem in vascular surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2004; 27: 275-282
  • 19 De Maeseneer M, Pichot O, Cavezzi A. et al. Duplex ultrasound investigation of the veins of the lower limbs after treatment for varicose veins e UIP consensus document. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 42: 89-102
  • 20 Hamann S, Giang J, De Maeseneer M. et al. Editor’s Choice- Five Year Results of Great Saphenous Vein Treatment: A Meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2017; 54: 760-770
  • 21 Ellinghaus E, Ellinghaus D, Krusche P. et al. Genome-wide association analysis for chronic venous disease identifies EFEMP1 and KCNH8 as susceptibility loci. Scientific RepoRts 7: 45652 DOI: 10.1038/srep45652
  • 22 Pfisterer L, König G, Hecker M and Korff T. Pathogenesis of varicose veins – lessons from biomechanics. Vasa 2014; 43: 88-99
  • 23 Hartmann K, Klode J, Pfister R. et al. Recurrent varicose veins: sonography-based re-examination of 210 patients 14 years after ligation and saphenous vein stripping. Vasa 2006; 35 (01) 21-26
  • 24 Stücker M, Netz K, Breuckmann F. et al. Histomorphologic classification of recurrent saphenofemoral reflux. J Vasc Surg 2004; 39: 816-821
  • 25 Brake M, Lim CS, Shepherd AC. et al. Pathogenesis and etiology of recurrent varicose veins. J Vasc Surg 2013; 57: 860-868
  • 26 Blomgren L, Johansson G, Emanuelsson L. et al. Late follow-up of a randomized trial of routine duplex imaging before varicose vein surgery. Br J Surg 2011; 98: 1112-1116
  • 27 Mumme A, Hummel T, Burger P. et al. High ligation of the saphenofemoral junction is necessary. Results of the German Groin Recurrence Study. Phlebologie 2009; 38: 99-102
  • 28 Theivacumar NS, Gough MJ. Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) to treat recurrent varicose veins. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 41: 691-696
  • 29 Hwang JH, Park SW, Chang IS. et al. Endovenous thermal ablation of recurrent varicose veins due to residual great saphenous venous insufficiency after saphenous venous surgery: A comparative study. Dermatol Surg. 2018 doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000001543. [Epub ahead of print]
  • 30 Nwaejike N, Srodon PD, Kyriakides C. Endovenous laserablation for the treatment of recurrent varicose vein disease - a single centre experience. Int J Surg 2010; 8: 299-301
  • 31 Rabe E, Breu F X, Cavezzi A. et al. for the Guideline Group: European guidelines for sclerotherapy in chronic venous disorders. Phlebology 2013; 29: 338-354
  • 32 Pavei P, Ferrini M, Spreafico G. et al. Ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy of recurrent varices of the great and small saphenous vein: 5-year follow up. Veins and Lymphatics 2014; 3 (4655) 57-59
  • 33 Shepherd AC, Gohel MS, Lim CS. et al. The treatment of varicose veins: an investigation of patient preferences and expectations. Phlebology 2010; 25: 54-65
  • 34 van Groenendael L, van der Vliet JA, Flinkenflögel L. et al. Treatment of recurrent varicose veins of the great saphenous vein by conventional surgery and endovenous laser ablation. J Vasc Surg 2009; 50 (05) 1106-1113
  • 35 Bruning G, Schinagl H. Surgical management of recurrent insufficiency of the sapheno-femoral junction using modified technique of Junod. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2011; 9: 646-647
  • 36 Bhatti TS, Whitman B, Harradine K. et al. Causes of re-recurrence after polytetrafluoroethylene patch saphenoplasty for recurrent varicose veins. Br J Surg 2000; 87 (10) 1356-1360
  • 37 Gibbs PJ, Foy DM, Darke SG. Reoperation for recurrent saphenofemoral incompetence: a prospective randomized trial using a reflected flap of pectineus fascia. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 1999; 18: 494-498
  • 38 Creton D. Surgery for recurrent Sapheno-femoral incompetence using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene patch interposition in front of the femoral vein: long term outcome in 119 extremities. Phlebology 2002; 16: 93-97
  • 39 Winterborn RJ, Earnshaw JJ. Randomised Trial of Polytetrafluoroethylene Patch Insertion for Recurrent Great Saphenous Varicose Veins. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2007; 34: 367-373
  • 40 Frings N, Nelle A, Tran P. et al. Reduction of neoreflux after correctly performed ligation of the saphenofemoral junction. A randomized trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2004; 28: 246-52