We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Stripping the long saphenous vein reduces the rate of reoperation for recurrent varicose veins: five-year results of a randomized trial.
Journal of Vascular Surgery 1999 April
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the possible long-term clinical advantages of stripping the long saphenous vein during routine primary varicose vein surgery.
METHODS: The study was designed as a 5-year, clinical and duplex scan follow-up examination of a group of patients who were randomized to stripping of the long saphenous vein during varicose vein surgery versus saphenofemoral ligation alone. The study was conducted in the vascular unit of a district general hospital. One hundred patients (133 legs) with uncomplicated primary long saphenous varicose veins originally were randomized. After invitation 5 years later, 78 patients (110 legs) underwent clinical review and duplex scan imaging.
RESULTS: Sixty-five patients remained pleased with the results of their surgery (35 of 39 stripped vs 30 of 39 ligated; P = .13). Reoperation, either done or awaited, for recurrent long saphenous veins was necessary for three of 52 of the legs that underwent stripping versus 12 of 58 ligated legs. The relative risk was 0.28, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.13 to 0.59 (P = .02). Neovascularization at the saphenofemoral junction was responsible for 10 of 12 recurrent veins that underwent reoperation and also was the cause of recurrent saphenofemoral incompetence in 12 of 52 stripped veins versus 30 of 58 ligated legs. The relative risk was 0.45, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.26 to 0.78 (P = .002).
CONCLUSION: Stripping reduced the risk of reoperation by two thirds after 5 years and should be routine for primary long saphenous varicose veins.
METHODS: The study was designed as a 5-year, clinical and duplex scan follow-up examination of a group of patients who were randomized to stripping of the long saphenous vein during varicose vein surgery versus saphenofemoral ligation alone. The study was conducted in the vascular unit of a district general hospital. One hundred patients (133 legs) with uncomplicated primary long saphenous varicose veins originally were randomized. After invitation 5 years later, 78 patients (110 legs) underwent clinical review and duplex scan imaging.
RESULTS: Sixty-five patients remained pleased with the results of their surgery (35 of 39 stripped vs 30 of 39 ligated; P = .13). Reoperation, either done or awaited, for recurrent long saphenous veins was necessary for three of 52 of the legs that underwent stripping versus 12 of 58 ligated legs. The relative risk was 0.28, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.13 to 0.59 (P = .02). Neovascularization at the saphenofemoral junction was responsible for 10 of 12 recurrent veins that underwent reoperation and also was the cause of recurrent saphenofemoral incompetence in 12 of 52 stripped veins versus 30 of 58 ligated legs. The relative risk was 0.45, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.26 to 0.78 (P = .002).
CONCLUSION: Stripping reduced the risk of reoperation by two thirds after 5 years and should be routine for primary long saphenous varicose veins.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Management of Diverticulitis: A Review.JAMA Surgery 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app