Surgical treatments for chronic deep venous insufficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to critically appraise and synthesize the published evidence regarding the short- and long-term efficacy/effectiveness of surgical techniques for patients with deep venous insufficiency (DVI) refractory to other forms of management. Methods: All original, published studies on non-pregnant human patients undergoing treatment for deep or mixed deep/superficial/perforator chronic venous insufficiency were identified by systematically searching PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index and the websites of various health technology assessment agencies, research registers and guidelines sites, from January 1990 to July 2003. No language restriction was applied. Results: A total of two randomized controlled trials and 12 non-randomized comparative studies reported on a variety of procedures ranging from superficial venous surgery (SVS) and subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery (SEPS), through to deep venous reconstruction (including valvuloplasty, transplantation and transposition) for the treatment of DVI. Limited evidence suggested that combined SVS/valvuloplasty is a relatively safe procedure that is potentially more effective than SVS alone in preventing ulcer recurrence in patients with primary DVI in both the short- and mid-term. Evidence for the efficacy of valvuloplasty, bypass, transplantation, SEPS and iliac stenting in the treatment of DVI was inconclusive. The optimal surgery for patients with deep venous obstruction or secondary valvular incompetence remains unclear. Conclusions: It is unlikely that a large randomized, or even non-randomized, controlled trial will be conducted to ascertain the safety and efficacy of surgery for DVI. However, standardized reporting and collection of data in a registry would be a move forward. In addition, professional bodies should consider providing guidance, in the form of an evidence-based treatment algorithm, that would define when to perform SVS in patients with mixed or deep venous insufficiency and what type of deep venous surgery is considered appropriate for different indications. A prime focus of future research may be to understand why less invasive treatments have failed in patients requiring surgery for DVI and to identify those patients who would benefit most from early surgical intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".