Causes and Treatment of Varicose Recurrence in the Popliteal Region
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: In a previous study of 1,081 limbs affected with varicose recurrence (VR) at the saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) and at the sapheno-popliteal junction (SPJ), the anatomical causes were investigated. VR appeared to be due to inadequate diagnosis and surgery; neoangiogenesis appeared to play a minimal role. The so-called cavernoma was secondary to reflux and consisted with a complex collateral circulation (CC). Only 52 of 1,081 (4.8%) studied limbs developed a VR at the SPJ, but the anatomical findings were poorly described. The aims of this study were: 1) to distinguish between VR at the SPJ and the ones caused by different sources of reflux, 2) the reliability of the preoperative DUS examination, and 3) the efficacy and safety of the treatment. Methods: DUS examinations, surgery and sclerotherapy were performed by one single group of physicians. Nineteen of 207 (9.1%) limbs affected with VR at the popliteal region were studied and treated. Most of the previous interventions performed in different vascular units (only one in our center) were high or low interruption +/- stripping of the small saphenous vein (17/19, 89.4%). VRs > 3 mm were treated by surgical high ligation and intraoperative sclerotherapy in 13/19 (68.4%) and short invagination stripping in 1/19 (5.2%); 4/19 (21.0%) with VR < 3 mm were treated by sclerotherapy only. One patient (5.2%) asked for conservative treatment. In all the cases, intraoperative and postoperative elastic compressions were applied. DUS and surgical findings were compared. Controls were performed by clinical and DUS examination (mean follow-up 3.8 years, min. 1, max. 8). Results: Of 19 limbs observed, residual SPJ with a long saphenous stump (SS) was in 14 (73.6%) and SPJ was absent in 5 (26.3%): 1/19 (5.2%) was a long SS with high outlet into the superficial femoral, one was (5.2%) a long SS with high outlet into the medial accessory, and two (10.5%) were non-saphenous popliteal perforator. More frequent residuals were in various combinations: SS 14 (73.6%), non-saphenous popliteal perforators 10 (52.6%), intersaphenous communicating veins 3 (15.7%), CC 4 (21.0%), multiple sources of reflux 10 (52.6%), and no suspected neoangiogenesis. DUS/surgical findings were overlapping in 13/14 re-operated limbs (92.8%): no post-treatment residual sources of reflux, short saphenous vein (SSV) permanently occluded by sclerotherapy in 17/18 (94.4%); minor complications in 4/18 (27.7%). Mean follow-up was 3.8 years (min. 1, max. 8). Conclusions: The main causes of VR at the popliteal region are the postoperative anatomical residuals, mainly a long SS and perforators due to incomplete diagnosis and treatment and/or disease progression. Neovascularization was absent. CC appears to be a consequence of residual reflux. DUS is a reliable method for detecting the anatomical causes and indications for the treatment. Surgical revision combined with intraoperative sclerotherapy and elastic compression appeared to be a simple, effective and inexpensive procedure for the larger VR (> 3 mm) at the PR. Sclerotherapy gave satisfactory results in the treatment of the smallest VR (< 3 mm). J Curr Surg. 2017;7(3):27-34 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcs325w
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».