Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Für und Wider der klassischen Krossektomie mit Stripping im Vergleich zu endoluminalen Therapieverfahren

Konkurrenzkampf oder Teamplay?

Pros and cons of classic crossectomy with stripping compared to endoluminal treatment

Competition or team play?

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Hautarzt Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die chronisch venöse Insuffizienz (CVI) der Beinvenen zählt zu den häufigen Volksleiden in unserer Gesellschaft. Dies gibt Anlass, sich sowohl mit dem Krankheitsbild der CVI als auch mit dem Für und Wider der unterschiedlichen Behandlungsmöglichkeiten zu beschäftigen. Aus den mittlerweile zahlreich verfügbaren Therapien der Varikose (konservative Therapie, operative Verfahren, endoluminale Techniken, Schaumsklerosierung) sollte eine evidenzbasierte, für den Patienten individuell gewählte Therapieoption eingesetzt werden. Der vorliegende Beitrag ist ein Versuch, das Für und Wider der chirurgischen mit der endoluminalen Therapie zu vergleichen, um praxisrelevante Schlüsse für die Therapieentscheidung ziehen zu können.

Abstract

The chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) of the leg veins is one of the most common diseases in our society. Thus, it is important to know the clinical picture of CVI and the pros and cons of the different treatment options. Of the various treatments available for varicose veins (conservative therapy, operative procedures, endoluminal techniques, foam sclerotherapy), an evidence-based, treatment option should be individually chosen for each patient. In this article, the pros and cons of surgery are compared with endoluminal therapy in order to draw practical conclusions for the treatment decision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Almeida JI, Javier JJ, Mackay E et al (2013) First human use of cyanoacrylate adhesive for treatment of saphenous vein incompetence. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 1(2):174–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brake M, Lim CS, Shepherd AC et al (2013) Pathogenesis and etiology of recurrent varicose veins. J Vasc Surg 57(3):860–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bush RG, Shamma HN, Hammond K (2008) Histological changes occurring after endoluminal ablation with two diode lasers (940 and 1319 nm) from acute changes to 4 months. Lasers Surg Med 40(10):676–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Calvani M, Rapisarda A, Uranchimeg B et al (2006) Hypoxic induction of an HIF-1alpha-dependent bFGF autocrine loop drives angiogenesis in human endothelial cells. Blood 107(7):2705–2712

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Elias S, Raines JK (2012) Mechanochemical tumescentless endovenous ablation: final results of the initial clinical trial. Phlebology 27(2):67–72

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Evans CJ, Fowkes FG, Ruckley CV et al (1999) Prevalence of varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency in men and women in the general population: Edinburgh Vein Study. J Epidemiol Community Health 53(3):149–153

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Frings N, Nelle A, Tran P et al (2004) Reduction of neoreflux after correctly performed ligation of the saphenofemoral junction. A randomized trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 28(3):246–252

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hach W (2012) Medizingeschichte der Krossektomie. Phlebologie 41:142–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Helmy ElKaffas K, ElKashef O, ElBaz W (2011) Great saphenous vein radiofrequency ablation versus standard stripping in the management of primary varicose veins—a randomized clinical trial. Angiology 62(1):49–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. de Maeseneer MG, Vandenbroeck CP, Hendriks JM et al (2005) 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 29:308–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. de Maeseneer MG, Philipsen TE, Vandenbroeck CP et al (2007) Closure of the cribriform fascia: an efficient anatomical barrier against postoperative neovascularisation at the saphenofemoral junction? A prospective study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 34(3):361–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mühlberger et al (2018) Die „korrekte“ Crossektomie der V. saphena magna und parva. Phlebologie 47(04):222–225. https://doi.org/10.12687/phleb2428-4-2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mumme A et al (2019) Alarmierend hohe Rate saphenofemoraler Rezidive nach endovenöser Lasertherapie. Phlebologie 48(01):18–22. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0798-6120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mumme A, Hummel T, Burger P et al (2009) High ligation of the saphenofemoral junction is necessary!: Results of the German Groin Recurrence Study. Phlebologie 38:99–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nesbitt C, Bedenis R, Bhattacharya V et al (2014) Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus open surgery for great saphenous vein varices

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Pannier F, Rabe E, Maurins U (2010) 1470 nm diode laser for endovenous ablation (EVLA) of incompetent saphenous veins—a prospective randomized pilot study comparing warm and cold tumescence anaesthesia. VASA 39(3):249–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pannier F, Noppeney T, Alm J, Breu FX, Bruning G, Flessenkämper I, Gerlach H, Hartmann K, Kahle B, Kluess H, Mendoza E, Mühlberger D, Mumme A, Nüllen H, Rass K, Reich-Schupke S, Stenger D, Stücker M, Schmedt CG, Schwarz T, Tesmann J, Teßarek J, Werth S, Valesky E (2013) S2k – Leitlinie Diagnostik und Therapie der Varikose. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/037-018l_S2k_Varikose_Diagnostik-Therapie_2019-07.pdf. Zugegriffen: 05.09.2019

  18. Papapstolou G et al (2013) Die LaVaCro-Studie: Langzeitergebnisse der Varizenoperation mit Crossektomie und Stripping der V. saphena magna. Phlebologie 42(05):253–260. https://doi.org/10.12687/phleb2139-5-2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pavlovic MD, Schuller-Petrovic S, Pichot O et al (2015) Guidelines of the first international consensus conference on endovenous thermal ablation for varicose vein disease—ETAV consensus meeting 2012. Phlebology 30(4):257–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pronk P, Gauw SA, Mooij MC, Gaastra MT, Lawson JA, van Goethem AR, van Vlijmen-van Keulen CJ (2010) Randomised controlled trial comparing sa-pheno-femoral ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein with endovenous laser ablation (980 nm) using local tumescent anaesthesia: one year results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 40:649–656

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rabe E, Pannier-Fischer F, Bromen K, Schuldt K, Stang A, Poncar C, Wittenhorst M, Bock E, Weber S, Jöckel KH (2003) Bonn Vein Study by the German Society of Phlebology. Epidemiological study to investigate the prevalence and severity of chronic venous disorders in the urban and rural residential populations. Phlebologie 32:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rasmussen L, Lawaetz M, Bjoern L et al (2013) Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation and stripping of the great saphenous vein with clinical and duplex outcome after 5 years. J Vasc Surg 58(2):421–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rasmussen LH, Bjoern L, Lawaetz M et al (2007) Randomized trial comparing endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein with high ligation and stripping in patients with varicose veins: short-term results. J Vasc Surg 46(2):308–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rasmussen LH, Lawaetz M, Bjoern L et al (2011) Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg 98(8):1079–1087

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rass K (2015) Ist die endovenöse Lasertherapie wirklich besser als die Stripping-Operation? Gefässchirurgie 20(2):127–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rass K, Frings N, Glowacki P, Hamsch C, Gräber S, Vogt T, Tilgen W (2012) Comparable effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation and high ligation with stripping of the great saphenous vein—two-year results of a randomized clinical trial (RELACS study). Arch Dermatol 148(1):49–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Stücker M et al (2004) Histomorphologic classi cation of recurrent saphenofemoral reflux. J Vasc Surg 39:816–821 (discussion 822)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Subramonia S, Lees T (2010) Radiofrequency ablation vs conventional surgery for varicose veins—a comparison of treatment costs in a randomised trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 39(1):104–111

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Van den Bos R, Arends L, Kockaert M et al (2009) Endovenous therapies of lower extremity varicosities: a meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg 49:230–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Hautkrankheiten, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Von-Esmarch-Str. 58, 48149, Münster, Deutschland

    C. Mitschang &  T. Goerge

  2. Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Deutschland

    D. Mühlberger

Authors
  1. C. Mitschang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Mühlberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Goerge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Goerge.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

C. Mitschang, D. Mühlberger und T. Goerge geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mitschang, C., Mühlberger, D. & Goerge, T. Für und Wider der klassischen Krossektomie mit Stripping im Vergleich zu endoluminalen Therapieverfahren. Hautarzt 71, 6–11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00105-019-04515-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00105-019-04515-z

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation