AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightWeshowed an association between weight, BMI, VCSS, CEAP classification and the extent of insufficiency
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Özet
PURPOSEThis study aims to establish a clinically applicable classification of reflux patterns in patientswith great saphenous vein insufficiency and to evaluate the relationship between this classification, the demographics, and severity of clinical findings.METHODSThis is a retrospective study from prospectively collected data of 503 patients who had the complaint of varicose vein. All patients had complete physical examination and their medical historywas recorded. Lower limbs of all patients were examined with Doppler ultrasonography. A totalof 787 limbs with great saphenous vein insufficiency were included in the analysis. The refluxpatterns of great saphenous vein insufficiency were classified into 4 types as: type 1, great saphenous vein reflux without involvement of malleolar region and saphenofemoral junction (SFJ);type 2, reflux involving malleolar region with competent SFJ; type 3, reflux involving SFJ withcompetent malleolar region; and type 4, reflux involving both the SFJ and the malleolar region.We evaluated the association between the classification of great saphenous vein insufficiencyand age, sex, body mass index (BMI), disease duration, clinical, etiological, anatomical and pathophysiological elements (CEAP) classification and venous clinical severity score (VCSS).RESULTSThe mean age of the patients was 45.3±11.7 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 2:3. Themost common reflux pattern in patients with great saphenous vein insufficiency was type 3(48.9%), while 14.8% of patients had type 1, 10.4% had type 2, and 25.7% had type 4. Patientswith type I reflux pattern were younger in age (p = 0.002), had lower BMI (p = 0.002), fewernumber of children (p = 0.008), as well as milder clinical severity score (p = 0.002) comparedto other reflux types. Duration of disease symptoms was not significantly correlated with thereflux patterns, but VCSS increased with the involvement of malleolar region as in type 2compared to type 1 (2.82±1.67 vs. 2.74±2.31), and further increased with the involvement ofSFJ as in type 3 (4.13±2.92 vs. 2.82±1.67). Patients with diffuse reflux pattern (type 4) had themost severe clinical presentation (4.59±2.9).CONCLUSIONWe developed a clinically applicable classification of reflux patterns in patients with greatsaphenous vein insufficiency based on the involvement of malleolar region and/or SFJ. Weshowed an association between weight, BMI, VCSS, CEAP classification and the extent of insufficiency