Femoral vein stenting versus endovenectomy as adjuncts to iliofemoral venous stenting in extensive chronic iliofemoral venous obstruction.

IF 1.5 Phlebology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-27 DOI:10.1177/02683555241236824

Mohammed Alsagheer Alhewy, Abdelaziz Ahmed Abdelhafez, Mohammed Hamza Metwally, Ehab Abd Elmoneim Ghazala, Alhussein M Khedr, Ahmed Atef Khamis, Hassan Gado, Wael Abdo Abdo Abd-Elgawad, Abdullah El Sayed, Abdelhalim A Abdelmohsen

{"title":"Femoral vein stenting versus endovenectomy as adjuncts to iliofemoral venous stenting in extensive chronic iliofemoral venous obstruction.","authors":"Mohammed Alsagheer Alhewy, Abdelaziz Ahmed Abdelhafez, Mohammed Hamza Metwally, Ehab Abd Elmoneim Ghazala, Alhussein M Khedr, Ahmed Atef Khamis, Hassan Gado, Wael Abdo Abdo Abd-Elgawad, Abdullah El Sayed, Abdelhalim A Abdelmohsen","doi":"10.1177/02683555241236824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare femoral endovenectomy with the creation of an arteriovenous fistula (FE + AVF), versus iliofemoral endovenous stenting with the concurrent extended femoral vein (FV-S) stenting in patients with chronic iliofemoral venous obstruction (IFVO).Materials and methods: In a randomized prospective single-center study, 48 received (FV-S), while the other 54 had (FE + AVF).Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the primary outcomes between the two groups (FV-S) and (FE + AVF) (59% vs 56.8%, 75% vs 79.1%, respectively). At a median of 13 months after the treatment. However, the FV-S group's patients experienced fewer postoperative problems (p = .012), shorter procedures (p = .001), and shorter stays in the hospital (p = .025).Conclusion: There is no difference between the efficacy and symptomatic resolution of the FV-S group and the FE + AVF group at the same time, FV-S has lower postoperative complications and a shorter procedure duration and hospital stay.","PeriodicalId":94350,"journal":{"name":"Phlebology","volume":" ","pages":"393-402"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Phlebology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02683555241236824","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare femoral endovenectomy with the creation of an arteriovenous fistula (FE + AVF), versus iliofemoral endovenous stenting with the concurrent extended femoral vein (FV-S) stenting in patients with chronic iliofemoral venous obstruction (IFVO).

Materials and methods: In a randomized prospective single-center study, 48 received (FV-S), while the other 54 had (FE + AVF).

Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the primary outcomes between the two groups (FV-S) and (FE + AVF) (59% vs 56.8%, 75% vs 79.1%, respectively). At a median of 13 months after the treatment. However, the FV-S group's patients experienced fewer postoperative problems (p = .012), shorter procedures (p = .001), and shorter stays in the hospital (p = .025).

Conclusion: There is no difference between the efficacy and symptomatic resolution of the FV-S group and the FE + AVF group at the same time, FV-S has lower postoperative complications and a shorter procedure duration and hospital stay.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

股静脉支架植入术与髂股静脉支架植入术辅助治疗广泛的慢性髂股静脉阻塞。

目的：在慢性髂股静脉阻塞（IFVO）患者中，比较股内膜切除术与动静脉瘘（FE + AVF），以及髂股内膜支架植入术与同时股静脉延长支架植入术（FV-S）：在一项随机前瞻性单中心研究中，48名患者接受了（FV-S），另外54名患者接受了（FE + AVF）：结果：(FV-S)和(FE + AVF)两组的主要结果无明显统计学差异（分别为 59% vs 56.8%、75% vs 79.1%）。治疗后中位数为 13 个月。然而，FV-S 组患者的术后问题更少（p = .012），手术时间更短（p = .001），住院时间更短（p = .025）：结论：FV-S 组与 FE + AVF 组在疗效和症状缓解方面没有差异，同时 FV-S 组术后并发症较少，手术时间和住院时间较短。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Phlebology

自引率

0.00%

发文量