Crossotomy vs crossectomy for saphenous vein sparing surgery in patients with varicose veins due to ostial incontinence: protocol for double blind, multicenter, randomized trial
Eugenio Martelli, Laura Capoccia, G. Sotgiu, L. Saderi, M. Puci, Piero Modugno, Sergio Furgiuele, Vincenzo Aversano, Salvatore De Vivo, Luca Iorio, A. R. Martelli, Stefano Ricci
{"title":"Crossotomy vs crossectomy for saphenous vein sparing surgery in patients with varicose veins due to ostial incontinence: protocol for double blind, multicenter, randomized trial","authors":"Eugenio Martelli, Laura Capoccia, G. Sotgiu, L. Saderi, M. Puci, Piero Modugno, Sergio Furgiuele, Vincenzo Aversano, Salvatore De Vivo, Luca Iorio, A. R. Martelli, Stefano Ricci","doi":"10.4081/vl.2024.12146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Double‑blind/multicenter/randomized trial protocol. Eligibility criteria: age 18-70 yrs; C2-C5 leg varices secondary to the Great Saphenous Vein (GSV) incontinence; GSV size 6-10mm, at 10cm from the Saphenous-Femoral Junction (SFJ); ostial reflux lasting >0.5 sec at duplex ultrasound; negative reflux elimination test; acceptance of the GSV sparing treatment plus partial/total varicose veins removal. Exclusion criteria: non-isolated GSV reflux; district already treated; pregnancy/lactation; impaired walking ability; deep vein thrombosis/insufficiency; severe comorbidities. Participants recruited from 7 Italian tertiary referral centres. Interventions: crossotomy (no SFJ’s tributaries ligation) vs crossectomy. The study aimed to verify if GSV drainage through the SFJ’s tributaries reduces groin/peripheral recurrences. Primary endpoint: 1-year GSV reflux recurrence, positive to the Valsalva maneuver, originating from the SF. Participants equally randomized. Participants, care givers, and those assessing the outcomes blinded to group assignment.","PeriodicalId":421508,"journal":{"name":"Veins and Lymphatics","volume":"19 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veins and Lymphatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/vl.2024.12146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Double‑blind/multicenter/randomized trial protocol. Eligibility criteria: age 18-70 yrs; C2-C5 leg varices secondary to the Great Saphenous Vein (GSV) incontinence; GSV size 6-10mm, at 10cm from the Saphenous-Femoral Junction (SFJ); ostial reflux lasting >0.5 sec at duplex ultrasound; negative reflux elimination test; acceptance of the GSV sparing treatment plus partial/total varicose veins removal. Exclusion criteria: non-isolated GSV reflux; district already treated; pregnancy/lactation; impaired walking ability; deep vein thrombosis/insufficiency; severe comorbidities. Participants recruited from 7 Italian tertiary referral centres. Interventions: crossotomy (no SFJ’s tributaries ligation) vs crossectomy. The study aimed to verify if GSV drainage through the SFJ’s tributaries reduces groin/peripheral recurrences. Primary endpoint: 1-year GSV reflux recurrence, positive to the Valsalva maneuver, originating from the SF. Participants equally randomized. Participants, care givers, and those assessing the outcomes blinded to group assignment.