2009Phlebology The Journal of Venous DiseaseRequires access

Sclerotherapy and foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins

P Coleridge Smith

Open publisher page 95 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To review published evidence concerning treatment of varicose veins using ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) to assess the safety and efficacy of this treatment. METHODS: Medical literature databases including MedLine, Embase and DH-DATA were searched for recent literature concerning UGFS. Papers describing the early results and later outcome have been assessed and their main findings were included in this summary. RESULTS: Few randomized studies have been published in this field and much of the available data come from clinical series reported by individual clinicians. It is clear that foam sclerotherapy is far more effective than liquid sclerotherapy and that ultrasound imaging allows the treatment to be delivered accurately to affected veins. There is evidence that 3% polidocanol foam is no more effective than 1% polidocanol foam. The optimum ratio of gas to liquid is 4:1, although a range of ratios is reported in the published work. There is a wide variation in the volume used as well as the method by which it is injected. The use of carbon dioxide foam reduces the systemic complications, particularly visual disturbance, as compared with air foams. Very few serious adverse events have been reported in the literature despite the widespread use of this method. Rates of recanalization of saphenous trunks following UGFS are similar to those observed after endovenous laser and endovenous RF ablation of veins, as well as the residual incompetence after surgical treatment. CONCLUSION: UGFS is a safe and effective method of treating varicose veins. The relative advantages or disadvantages of this treatment in the longer term have yet to be published.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVES: To review published evidence concerning treatment of varicose veins using ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) to assess the safety and efficacy of this treatment. METHODS: Medical literature databases including MedLine, Embase and DH-DATA were searched for recent literature concerning UGFS. Papers describing the early results and later outcome have been assessed and their main findings were included in this summary. RESULTS: Few randomized studies have been published in this field and much of the available data come from clinical series reported by individual clinicians. It is clear that foam sclerotherapy is far more effective than liquid sclerotherapy and that ultrasound imaging allows the treatment to be delivered accurately to affected veins. There is evidence that 3% polidocanol foam is no more effective than 1% polidocanol foam. The optimum ratio of gas to liquid is 4:1, although a range of ratios is reported in the published work. There is a wide variation in the volume used as well as the method by which it is injected. The use of carbon dioxide foam reduces the systemic complications, particularly visual disturbance, as compared with air foams. Very few serious adverse events have been reported in the literature despite the widespread use of this method. Rates of recanalization of saphenous trunks following UGFS are similar to those observed after endovenous laser and endovenous RF ablation of veins, as well as the residual incompetence after surgical treatment. CONCLUSION: UGFS is a safe and effective method of treating varicose veins. The relative advantages or disadvantages of this treatment in the longer term have yet to be published.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 95 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVES: To review published evidence concerning treatment of varicose veins using ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) to assess the safety and efficacy of this treatment. METHODS: Medical literature databases including MedLine, Embase and DH-DATA were searched for recent literature concerning UGFS. Papers describing the early results and later outcome have been assessed and their main findings were included in this summary. RESULTS: Few randomized studies have been published in this field and much of the available data come from clinical series reported by individual clinicians. It is clear that foam sclerotherapy is far more effective than liquid sclerotherapy and that ultrasound imaging allows the treatment to be delivered accurately to affected veins. There is evidence that 3% polidocanol foam is no more effective than 1% polidocanol foam. The optimum ratio of gas to liquid is 4:1, although a range of ratios is reported in the published work. There is a wide variation in the volume used as well as the method by which it is injected. The use of carbon dioxide foam reduces the systemic complications, particularly visual disturbance, as compared with air foams. Very few serious adverse events have been reported in the literature despite the widespread use of this method. Rates of recanalization of saphenous trunks following UGFS are similar to those observed after endovenous laser and endovenous RF ablation of veins, as well as the residual incompetence after surgical treatment. CONCLUSION: UGFS is a safe and effective method of treating varicose veins. The relative advantages or disadvantages of this treatment in the longer term have yet to be published.

Key concepts: Sclerotherapy, Varicose veins, Medicine, Surgery

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Sclerotherapy and foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins — Research Paper | ScholarLens