临床外科杂志 ›› 2024, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (9): 985-989.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-6483.2024.09.025

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同手术顺序在超声引导下腔内微波消融联合泡沫硬化剂治疗原发性大隐静脉曲张的临床疗效

刘彬 尹超云 葛彦锋 陶政   

  1. 212001 江苏镇江,江苏大学附属医院血管外科
  • 收稿日期:2023-11-19 出版日期:2024-10-12 发布日期:2024-10-12
  • 通讯作者: 陶政,Email:taozheng67@foxmail.com

Clinical efficacy of different surgical sequences in ultrasound-guided endovenous microwave ablation combined with foam sclerotherapy in the treatment of primary great saphenous varicose veins

LIU Bin,YIN Chaoyun,GE Yanfeng,TAO Zheng   

  1. Department of Vascular Surgery,Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University,Zhenjiang,Jiangsu 212001,China
  • Received:2023-11-19 Online:2024-09-20 Published:2024-10-12

摘要: 目的 探讨不同手术顺序在超声引导下腔内微波消融联合泡沫硬化剂治疗原发性大隐静脉曲张的安全性和有效性。方法 选取2022年1月~2023年1月我院行腔内微波消融联合泡沫硬化剂治疗原发性大隐静脉曲张的病人80例,根据手术顺序不同将病人分为观察组与对照组,每组各40例。对照组病人实施先超声引导下腔内微波消融大隐静脉主干闭合术,后小腿浅静脉泡沫硬化剂注射+局部小切口点状抽剥;观察组病人实施先小腿浅静脉泡沫硬化剂注射+局部小切口点状抽剥,后超声引导下腔内微波消融大隐静脉主干闭合术。统计两组病人的围手术期相关指标,术后1周血肿、瘀斑、硬结、皮肤灼伤、血栓性浅静脉炎、热消融诱导血栓形成的发生率,比较两组病人术后3、6个月静脉临床严重程度评分表(venous clinical severity score,VCSS)、慢性静脉疾病生活质量量表(chronic venous insufficiency quality of life,CIVIQ)评估病人静脉曲张术后恢复情况。术后6个月,通过复查彩色多普勒超声比较大隐静脉主干再通率。结果 两组病人手术时间分别为(68.13±3.34)分钟 和(66.83±3.19)分钟,术中失血量分别为(15.35±2.63)ml和(14.83±2.66)ml、下地活动时间分别为(14.35±3.34)小时和(13.60±2.63)小时、住院时间分别为(2.93±0.52)天和(3.15±0.61)天,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组病人术后3个月的VCSS分别3.00±0.59和3.03±0.61,6个月的VCSS分别为2.20±1.17 和2.35±0.96,均低于本组术前的4.08±1.37 和4.23±1.33,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组病人术后3个月的CIVIQ分别为69.90±2.98和70.43±3.55,6个月的CIVIQ分别为59.05±3.79和58.00±4.66,均低于本组术前的79.63±5.41和80.03±7.44,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组病人术后1周的不良事件发生率[血肿(0 vs.0)、瘀斑(12.5% vs 15.0%)、硬结(10.0% vs.7.5%)、皮肤灼伤(0 vs.0)、血栓性浅静脉炎(12.5% vs.17.5%)、热消融诱导血栓形成(10.0% vs.5.0%)]比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组病人术后6个月主干再通率(5.0% vs.2.5%)比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 两种术式在治疗原发性大隐静脉曲张的疗效无明显差异,安全性较高,均值得临床推广。

关键词: 微波消融;超声;泡沫硬化剂;大隐静脉曲张

Abstract: Objective To investigate the safety and efficacy of different surgical sequences in the ultrasound-guided endovenous microwave ablation combined with foam sclerotherapy for the treatment of primary great saphenous varicose veins.Method A total of 80 patients with great saphenous varicose vein admitted in the affiliated hospital of Jiangsu University,from January 2022 to January 2023 were selected.Patients were divided into observation group and control group according to different operation order, with 40 cases in each group.The control group was treated with ultrasound-guided microwave ablation of the main saphenous vein was performed first,followed by superficial calf vein foam sclerotherapy injection and local small incision point extraction,and the observation group was treated with superficial calf vein foam sclerotherapy injection and local small incision point extraction first,followed by ultrasound-guided microwave ablation of the main saphenous vein was performed.Perioperative relevant indicators at the 1st week of the two groups were counted,and the incidence of hematoma,ecchymosis,induration,skin burn,thrombotic superficial phlebitis,and endovenous heat induced thrombosis at the 1st week after surgery.The venous clinical severity score and chronic venous insufficiency quality of life at the 3rd and 6th month after surgery were compared between the two groups.VCSS and CIVIQ were used to evaluate the postoperative recovery of patients with varicose veins.Six months after the operation,the recurrence rate of great saphenous vein was compared by color Doppler ultrasonography.Result The operation time of the two groups was (68.13±3.34)min and(66.83±3.19)min,respectively.The intraoperative blood loss was (15.35±2.63) ml and (14.83±2.66) ml, respectively.The underground activity time was (14.35±3.34) hours and (13.60±2.63) hours, respectively.The length of hospitalization was (2.93±0.52) days and (3.15±0.61) days, respectively.There was statistical significance between the two groups (P<0.05).The preoperative VCSS of the two groups were 4.08±1.37 and 4.23±1.33, respectively,3 months after surgery were 3.00±0.59 and 3.03±0.61, respectively,and 6 months after surgery were 2.20±1.17 and 2.35±0.96, respectively.The preoperative CIVIQ of the two groups were 79.63±5.41 and 80.03±7.44,respectively,3 months after operation was 69.90±2.98 and 70.43±3.55, respectively,the 6-month CIVIQ was 59.05±3.79 and 58.00±4.66, respectively.There was no statistical significance between the two groups (P>0.05).The incidence of adverse events [hematoma (0 vs 0),ecchymosis (12.5% vs 15.0%),sclerosis (10.0% vs 7.5%),skin burns (0 vs 0),thrombosed superficial phlebitis (12.5% vs 17.5%),and thermal ablation-induced thrombosis (10.0% vs 5.0%)] in the patients of the two groups in the 1-week period after the procedure were compared,and the difference were statistically non-significant (P>0.05).Comparison of trunk recanalisation rate (5.0% vs 2.5%) at 6 months after surgery,the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05).Conclusion There is no significant difference in the efficacy of the two procedures in the treatment of primary saphenous varicose veins,with a high degree of safety,both of which are worthy of clinical promotion.

Key words: microwave ablation;ultrasound;foam sclerotherapy;great saphenous varicose veins

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 张忠伟;刘扬;路明. 痔上黏膜环切术治疗直肠前突所致出口梗阻型便秘的疗效观察[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(10): 774 .
[2] 金鑫;周鹏;赵文超;等. 肾脏混合性上皮间质肿瘤一例[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(10): 785 .
[3] 陈凛;崔建新. 胃癌术后复发与再手术[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(11): 813 .
[4] 刘江豪;李刚;张克强;等. 机器人辅助甲状腺切除术和腔镜甲状腺切除术治疗cN0期分化型甲状腺癌的有效性、安全性Meta分析[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(11): 852 .
[5] 杨永辉;李欣欣;郝孟辉;等. 孤立性肺结节的诊治分析[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(11): 856 .
[6] 孙金亚;陈伟;邓飞;等. 限制补液在胸外伤继发急性肺损伤或急性呼吸窘迫综合征治疗中的应用[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(11): 862 .
[7] 李颢;叶达夫;李京涛;等. 双镜联合二期治疗尿道球部断裂一例[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(11): 878 .
[8] 刘智化;陈坚;刘绪舜. 超声引导下冷循环微波消融治疗甲状腺微小癌的临床价值[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(12): 934 .
[9] 张成 克力木 汪忠镐 . 胃食管反流病的外科治疗进展 [J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(4): 254 .
[10] 钟志刚 潘铁军 . 微通道经皮肾镜取石术中肾盂内高压对机体的影响 [J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(4): 313 - 313 .