Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 26, Issue 5 , Pages 727-735, November 1997

Presidential address: Venous disorders—Reflections of the past three decades☆☆☆★

Presented at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the American Venous Forum, San Antonio, Tex., Feb. 20–24, 1997.

Chicago, Ill.

Received 24 February 1997; accepted 28 February 1997.

Article Outline

 

It is a great honor to address the Ninth Annual Meeting of American Venous Forum. This meeting represents the best of American vascular surgeons with a special interest in venous disorders. Disease of the veins not only has long historical interest but also was the dominant feature of the beginning meetings of the Society for Vascular Surgery. Surgery of the venous system was discussed in those first addresses given by Presidents Ochsner,1 Allen,2 and Veal.3 As arterial surgery flourished, interest in venous disease by vascular surgeons began to fade. At present, the veins get no respect, despite the fact that the venous system contains the greatest part of the blood volume in human beings.

I am honored to be part of the mission of the American Venous Forum to restore interest in venous disorders to vascular surgeons. I completed my surgical residency at Cook County Hospital in June 1967 and went to St. Mary's Hospital in London to begin vascular training. Little did I know then that I would be involved in this specialty for 30 years. As I stand here today in 1997, it is interesting to reflect over the period of my own experience and to consider how much the diagnosis and treatment of venous disorders has changed in that time and what needs to change in the future. Because history is important to our future, I would also like to recall some of the historical landmarks of this largely ignored vascular problem.

Varicose veins are an ancient disease, and there were references to varicose veins in the early Egyptian and Greek writings. In fact, a votive tablet from the National Museum in Athens illustrating a man holding a huge leg with a varicose vein is a frequent feature in many historical writings of venous disease. My first exposure to venous disorders was varicose veins. In 1967, treatment of varicose veins by sclerotherapy was common in the British Isles. The introduction of injection treatment coincided with the development of the syringe by a Frenchman, Monsieur Pravaz of Lyons School, France, in 1851.4 Soon thereafter, in 1853, Chassaignac from Saint Antoine Hospital of Paris suggested the obliteration of varicose veins by injection of perchloride of iron.5 Sodium morrhuate was introduced in 1931 and was extensively used in the United States during the next two decades.6 Although modern days have seen better chemicals for sclerosing therapy, treatment of this disorder has evolved into the use of high technology such as laser, high-intensity pulsed light, or duplex ultrasound–guided sclerotherapy.7 How good these techniques are will never be answered scientifically. One fact, however, is true: abuse of treatment of varicose veins is common, and a business approach has been adopted by entrepreneur physicians to franchise for-profit-only vein clinics across the United States.

Vein stripping is probably one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures. Historical review of the surgical treatment of varicose veins has been well written in detail by Laufman,8 Ochsner and Mahorner,9 and Scott.10 In 1833, Davat attempted to eliminate the varicose veins by percutaneous ligation (Fig. 1).11

  • View full-size image.
  • Fig. 1. 

    Percutaneous ligation of varicose veins by Davat. (After Davat: Du traitement curatif des varices. J d conn med Prat, 1837;5:68,102. Reprinted with permission from Ochsner A, Mahorner H. Varicose veins. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Co., 1939:20.)

Ligation and saphenous vein stripping was first suggested by Madelung12 in 1844. Trendelenburg's operation, which he introduced in 1880,13 was the forerunner of modern surgery for varicose veins. It consisted of double ligation and division of the long saphenous vein below the saphenofemoral junction. Instrumentation to facilitate removal of the saphenous vein began in 1905 with Keller,14 who described removal of segments of vein by passing a wire through the lumen of the vein (Fig. 2).
  • View full-size image.
  • Fig. 2. 

    The Keller method of extirpation of vein by passing the twisted wire intraluminally for extraction. (From Keller WL. A new method of extirpating the internal saphenous and similar veins in varicose condition. New York Medical 1905;82:385. Reprinted with permission from Ochsner A, Mahorner H. Varicose veins. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Co., 1939:29.)

This is followed by the external vein stripper designed by Mayo in 1904.15 Shortly thereafter, Babcock suggested a modification of the Keller method and introduced the acorn-tipped intraluminal stripper, which bears a strong resemblance to the modern disposable plastic stripper.16 As early as 1904, Tavel17 and, in 1916, Homans18 called attention to the advisability of ligation of the long saphenous vein high above any of its collaterals to prevent recurrence. This dictum still holds true in modern day varicose vein surgery. Unfortunately, treatment of varicose veins is often delegated to the most junior staff who have mediocre knowledge of the disease. The recurrence rate is high if the initial procedure is not conducted properly. Controversy continues about saving the long saphenous in the thigh, but evidence is growing that stripping from groin to knee level gives better results than simple flush ligation of the saphenofemoral junction alone.19, 20 Recently, neovascularization at the groin has been accepted as a major cause of recurrent connections between the femoral vein and the retained long saphenous vein.21 As a result of this observation, some surgeons have suggested ligation of not only the primary tributaries of the saphenofemoral junction but also tributaries that open directly into the femoral vein.22, 23 This extended groin ligation combined with long saphenous vein stripping prevents recurrent varicosities. The argument to save the saphenous vein in the thigh for future coronary bypass grafting is not valid because most cardiac surgeons would not like to use a varicose or dilated thigh segment of the saphenous vein as a conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting. In modern days, most vein stripping procedures are done on outpatient basis. Interestingly, as early as 1930, Geza de Takats advocated vein ligation as an ambulatory procedure for these patients.24 The role of the short saphenous vein has been emphasized by Hobbs,25 as its incompetence is often overlooked. He also called attention to the surgical significance of gastrocnemius vein incompetence, the least-known clinical entity to American vascular surgeons.26 Varicose veins are not always a benign disease; we have encountered fatal hemorrhage in these patients.27

Varicose veins are common, and yet we knew very little about the epidemiologic variables of varicose veins in America. Reports from abroad indicate that female sex, increased age, pregnancy, geographic site, and race are risk factors.28, 29 Also, the pathogenesis of this condition remains poorly understood. A familial tendency is common, and the development of varicose veins is eventually based on primary valvular insufficiency of the major saphenous trunk, incompetence of the perforating veins, and venous wall weakness. Recently, progesterone receptor, elastase, and lysosomal enzymes have been implicated as contributing factors in the formation of varicose veins.30, 31, 32 Also, venous wall weakness as a result of a significant reduction of elastin content of varicose veins has been reported by Gandhi and colleagues.33 The fibrinolytic potential of the venous system is currently an area of research interest. Increased fibrinolytic activity in varicose veins has been reported.34 We have studied tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA) and urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) in normal and varicose veins. Levels of uPA in the varicose long saphenous veins were significantly higher than in normal veins at both the groin and ankle positions, which suggests a role for uPA in the pathogenesis of varicose veins.35 Further study using molecular biologic techniques is needed to understand the pathogenesis of varicose veins.

Perhaps one of the significant developments in the field of vascular surgery in the late 1960s was noninvasive technology. As a research fellow, my primary assignment was to study limb blood flow in patients with occlusive arterial disease using strain-gauge plethysmography. In 1967, the Doppler ultrasound technique was just being introduced for clinical use. For the first time, we were able to listen to the blood flow of a major vein. Further refinement of technology has made possible the detection of direction of blood flow, recording of blood flow velocity waveforms, and analysis of frequency spectrum. The development of duplex scanning with the ability to image a vessel and to record velocity at the specific site has revolutionized the examination of arteries and veins. An era of noninvasive examination has begun owing to the contribution of D. E. Strandness, incoming president of the American Venous Forum, and his colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle.

In the 1960s, one technique that deserves special mention is the I-125 fibrinogen uptake in the detection of venous thrombosis. Although the technique is no longer in use because of the possibility of viral hepatitis transmission, the I-125 fibrinogen uptake added significant information to our understanding of the natural history of venous thrombosis, especially after surgery. The principle of radioisotope technique was first conceived by Mr. John Hobbs, with whom I had the opportunity to work closely at St. Mary's Hospital.36 The I-125 fibrinogen technique paved the way for the development of various preventive measures for postoperative deep vein thrombosis.

In 1972, I returned to the States and joined John Bergan at Northwestern University Medical School, and we began to establish a Blood Flow Laboratory for clinical use. Venous thrombosis is common, and the first patient with deep vein thrombosis was recorded in 1515.37 The diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis by clinical examination, however, is not always reliable. It soon became apparent that an objective diagnostic test was needed. At that time, both impedance plethysmography and phleborheography emerged as useful diagnostic techniques. We then began to use impedance plethysmography combined with continuous-wave Doppler ultrasound as a standard noninvasive test in patients in whom deep vein thrombosis was suspected. The indirect technique lost its appeal when the B-mode scan was introduced. Compression ultrasonography and, thereafter, the color flow imager became the standard diagnostic test. The duplex scan also provides a better technique to quantitate venous reflux. Also, the venous flow direction and velocity at specific anatomical sites can be recorded accurately. We also developed venous refilling time using photoplethysmography as a screening test for chronic venous insufficiency.38 At present, air plethysmography provides a more objective measurement of venous outflow and calf-pump function in these patients. For varicose veins, routine use of duplex scanning before surgery remains uncertain because of the lack of objective studies to firmly establish the validity of routine use. However, there is no doubt that the technique is more reliable than the hand-held Doppler, particularly in the assessment of the saphenopopliteal junction. In recurrent varices, duplex scanning is the most reliable investigation. Duplex scanning is also helpful to resolve the complex anatomy of the popliteal fossa and in patients who have short saphenous vein or gastrocnemius vein incompetence. In patients who have venous ulceration, duplex scanning is as reliable as phlebography in demonstrating the status of the deep veins, and it identifies a subset of patients who may benefit from vein stripping.

In 1976, we held the first Northwestern symposium on vascular disease on the topic of Venous Problems. The symposium was dedicated to Dr. Geza de Takats, a well-known Chicago vascular surgeon. At that time, low-dose heparin was just being introduced as a prophylactic measure for deep vein thrombosis. Interestingly, as early as 1960, Dr. Geza de Takats was the first investigator to suggest the principle of low-dose heparin.39 At the same time, surgical prevention of pulmonary embolism was also undergoing a rapid evolution. Initial procedures such as intraluminal sutures or ligation have given way to extracaval clips, umbrella, then filter. Further refinement of technology has allowed the placement of the filter percutaneously and has greatly simplified the technique of vena cava interruption. The past three decades have also seen a great advance in our understanding of hematologic risk factors in deep vein thrombosis. Hematologic risk factors that have been found to cause venous thrombosis include deficiency of antithrombin III, protein C or S, the antiphospholipid syndrome, and the recent identification of activated protein C resistance, an autosomal inherited condition caused by a genetic defect, usually in factor V molecule. These tests should be sought in young patients who have deep vein thrombosis. We also know that superficial thrombophlebitis, often considered a benign condition, may be a marker for a hypercoagulable state.40 Of the Virchow triad in venous thrombosis—stasis, endothelial damage, and coagulability—the endothelial injury has received little attention. Recently, Wakefield et al.41, 42 have found significant inflammatory response in the vein wall in venous thrombosis. They suggested that cell interactions involving neutrophils, monocytes/macrophages, and various kinds of cytokines may play an important role in the pathogenesis of venous thrombosis. The pharmacologic treatment of deep vein thrombosis has undergone gradual evolution since Crafoord et al.43, 44 introduced heparin for treatment and prevention of deep vein thrombosis. Various dose regimens in conjunction with aspirin or warfarin have been suggested. The introduction of low–molecular weight heparin has great appeal because laboratory monitoring and dose adjustment are no longer needed. Low–molecular weight heparin can be used safely for outpatient treatment of deep vein thrombosis.45 This is of particular appeal in the managed care environment because reduction of hospital stay can be achieved safely.

From 1976 on, the Division of Vascular Surgery at Northwestern has continued the mission in postgraduate education by holding a 2 ½-day symposium every December. In 1984 and then in 1990, we sponsored symposia on “Surgery of the Veins” and “Venous Disorders,” respectively. Experts in their own field were invited to provide an in-depth presentation of various venous problems. We also published a book to accompany each meeting. This task afforded me a unique opportunity to keep pace with developments in various aspects of venous disorders.

No one in vascular surgery is spared the exposure to venous ulcer. This ancient disease was first mentioned by Hippocrates (460-377 BC).46 In 1676, Richard Wiseman, Sergeant Surgeon to Charles II, coined the term “varicose ulcer” and described a laced stocking for compression treatment (Fig. 3).47

  • View full-size image.
  • Fig. 3. 

    Laced-up leather stocking developed by Richard Wiseman for compression treatment of venous ulcer. (Reprinted with permission from Bergan JJ. Historical highlights in teaching venous insufficiency. In: Bergan JJ, Yao JST. Venous disorders. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1991:8.)

A leg ulcer caused by a perforating vein was first diagnosed by John Gay in 1868.48 He described the perforating veins of the calf and ankle, recorded the fact that ulcers could occur in the absence of varicose veins if there had been postthrombotic damage to the deep veins, and introduced the term “venous ulcer.” In 1916, John Homans first popularized the concept of ulcers as those associated with varicose veins of the leg, easily cured by removal of these veins, and as postthrombotic ulcers as always intractable to treatment.18 Since then, venous ulcer continues to be a challenging problem for surgeons. At present, there is no breakthrough for treatment of venous ulcer, and gradient compression therapy pioneered by Conrad Jobst remains the mainstay of treatment.49 Surprisingly, Unna paste, introduced in 1893, is highly effective in healing venous ulcer.50 Subfascial ligation of perforating veins, introduced by Linton in 1938,51 the modification of Linton's operation by Dodd,52 and Rob's procedure53 have only historical value. Most surgeons now favor compression treatment. Whether the new technique using endoscopy-assisted perforator ligation will make a difference awaits the conclusion of a multicenter trial being conducted by Dr. Peter Gloviczki. Other than reflux from incompetent perforating veins, we know very little about the pathogenesis of ulcer formation. In 1982, Browse and Burnand proposed that oxygen diffusion into the tissues of the skin was restricted by a pericapillary fibrin cuff that they had observed.54 The fibrin deposited around the capillary forms a barrier to the passage of oxygen and other nutrients that sustain the cells of the epidermis. This leads directly to cell death and ulceration. The white cell theory originated with Coleridge Smith and Scurr.55 They suggested that white cell sequestration (trapping) may cause degradation of tissues. Adhesion of white cells to endothelium, activation of neutrophils, and release of free radicals all cause tissue damage. In liposclerotic skin, they found significant increase of white cells. The “trap” hypothesis was suggested by Falanga and Eaglstein of Miami University.56 This was based on the assumption that macromolecules leaking into the dermis as a result of venous hypertension bind or “trap” growth factors and matrix material, which then become unavailable for tissue repair and for the maintenance of tissue integrity. All of these theories point toward the need for a molecular biologic approach to study venous ulcer formation. Of interest in the treatment of venous ulcer is the renewed attention to identifying varicose veins as the contributing factor. Several reports have mentioned the use of duplex scanning or refilling time to identify this group of patients.57, 58

Unlike arterial bypass grafting for arterial occlusive disease, bypass grafting for venous occlusion continues to be a surgical challenge. Development of venous bypass grafting started with Warren and Thayer59in 1954 on the use of saphenous vein for bypassing a postthrombotic occlusion of the superficial vein, and the operation was further developed by Husni60 in 1970 and May61 in 1972. Iliac vein occlusion was first similarly treated by femorofemoral bypass by Palma et al.62 in 1958. The technique was further popularized by Dale63 and Halliday et al.64In recent years, polytetrafluoroethylene grafts have been used for femorofemoral crossover grafting with simultaneous reconstruction of an arteriovenous fistula to maintain graft patency.65 The fistula is then ligated several months later. Maintaining patency of venous bypass grafts is often difficult because of the low flow rate of venous flow and, possibly, hematologic factors that predispose the graft to thrombosis. In acute venous thrombosis, thrombectomy has nearly become extinct from the surgical scene in this country. However, some European colleagues have claimed success in restoring flow in acute iliac vein thrombosis by combining thrombectomy with an arteriovenous fistula.66 In our vascular service, we have used vein bypass grafting for thrombotic occlusion only in selected instances. Another frequent use of bypass grafting is in patients who have nonthrombotic conditions. These include panel grafting for popliteal venous aneurysm resection,67 spiral grafting for superior vena cava syndrome,68 and brachial vein grafting for patients who have hemodialysis arteriovenous fistula with subclavian thrombosis and in patients who have thoracic outlet compression syndrome.

One of the most intriguing developments to occur in venous surgery in the past three decades is venous valve repair. According to Franklin,69 Gian Battisa Canano, professor of anatomy at Ferrara, was the first to identify venous valve in the azygous vein and renal vein. Venous valve in leg veins was described in detail by Aquapendente (1537-1619), a teacher of anatomy at the University of Padua (Fig. 4).70

William Harvey in 1628 first observed and described the function of venous valve that led to his discovery of the unidirectional flow of blood circulation.71 An attempt to correct venous valve incompetence experimentally was made by Eiseman et al. in 1953.72 In 1975, Kistner first described venous valve repair in human beings.73 Since then, venous valvuloplasty, transposition, or transplantation have been introduced. Newer techniques such as implantation of cryopreserved valve or endoscopy-assisted valve repair are within reach for clinical trial. Whether correction of a single valve incompetency will be sufficient to reverse the course of chronic venous insufficiency, however, remains to be seen. In our limited experience, we found that correction of the femoral valve alone yielded disappointing results.74 Nevertheless, we are now in an exciting stage to correct venous reflux in patients with chronic venous insufficiency.

In recent years, interventional technology has emerged as an alternate method in the treatment of venous disorders. In addition to percutaneous placement of vena cava filter and endoscopic ligation of perforator veins, several new treatment methods such as urokinase infusion and balloon dilatation with or without stent placement are available to treat venous stenosis.75 The incidence of subclavian vein thrombosis has increased as a result of the frequent use of indwelling catheters for hyperalimentation or chemotherapy, and in some patients thrombosis even progressed to develop the superior vena caval syndrome. At present, urokinase infusion is highly effective in treating acute subclavian-axillary vein thrombosis. The advantage of this approach in effort thrombosis is to uncover the underlying pathologic mechanism, which allows a plan for future correction of the anomaly. Compression is often caused by the clavicle head, which makes surgical correction difficult. Even with stent placement in the stenotic lesion, recurrent thrombosis is common because of the mobility of the thoracic outlet and also the clavicle head. In superior vena cava occlusion, disobliteration by urokinase followed by balloon dilatation and stent placement has been successful in providing symptomatic relief in these patients.76 In massive swollen leg as a result of vena cava thrombosis, we also found that urokinase treatment—by placing a catheter in the popliteal vein for selective infusion—followed by stent placement restored patency of major veins in these patients. Endovascular stents have also been placed in iliac vein compression, better known as the May and Turner syndrome.77 The idea is intriguing; however, a large series is needed to further substantiate the validity of this form of interventional therapy. Other interventional techniques we use together with radiologists include alcohol injection to reduce the size of venous malformation and to occlude the incompetent ovarian vein with coils in patients who have pelvic congestion syndrome.78

One of most significant developments in the field of venous disorders was the formation of the American Venous Forum. The organization was formed in 1986 with the mission to promote research and education in venous disease. Certainly, venous disorders have been neglected, not only in the teaching curriculum but also in the priority of research and education in most of the vascular surgical training programs. Since the inception of this organization, significant steps have been taken to accomplish the objectives set out by the founding members. We now have a Foundation to support research efforts. Several rewards, including a research fellowship, are now in place. The annual meeting allows a meaningful exchange and dissemination of knowledge. The additional postgraduate course is designed to focus on current venous problems. For clinical practice, various committees have been formed to look into issues related to reimbursement and terminology for classification of venous disorders. A report on research plans in venous disease has been completed by the research committee, and this document will serve as the blueprint for future direction in venous research. The American Venous Forum has produced a consensus statement on classification of chronic venous insufficiency, the reporting standard on venous disease with the joint vascular societies, and a handbook on venous disorders. For promotion of research, a dialogue has been established with leaders of NHLBI/NIH to develop joint research programs in venous research. Although we have been quite successful, it is important to remind ourselves that the American Venous Forum is not a social club and its mission is to promote research and education in venous disorders. To achieve this aim, we need to define our target audience. If our mission is to educate vascular surgeons, we need to take steps to reach the younger generation of trainees in vascular surgery and to work with the Association of Program Directors in Vascular Surgery to develop curricula to enhance education in venous disease. We need to give strong consideration to rescheduling this meeting to be in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery. As we all know, veins run parallel with arteries, and we are part of the main of vascular surgery. I have no doubt that cross-fertilization is certainly better than isolation. We need to build bridges with other disciplines to move the field forward. Vascular surgery has changed a great deal as a result of technical innovations, and we need to work with radiology colleagues to bring new techniques to treat this disorder. There have been significant changes in the care of patients with venous problems in the past three decades, and we need to continue to make changes. Change is desirable and change is for life. I thank the members for the opportunity to serve as your president and I am confident that the incoming president, Dr. Eugene Strandness, will make veins get more respect and, more important, will work to fulfill the mission of the American Venous Forum.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Ochsner A. Venous thrombosis. Surgery. 1948;24:445–451
  2. Allen AW. The present evaluation of the prophylaxis and treatment of venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Surgery. 1949;26:1–7
  3. Veal JR, Cotsonas NJ. Diseases of the superior vena caval system with special consideration of pathology and diagnosis. Surgery. 1952;31:1–12
  4. Pravaz . Com Rend Acad de Sc Paris. 1851;36:88
  5. Chassaignac; quoted by Babcock WW. A textbook of surgery. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 1936;
  6. McPheeters HO. Varicose veins: with special reference to the injection treatment. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Co; 1931;
  7. Villavicencio JL, Pfeifer JR, Lohr JM, Goldman MP, Cranley R, Spence R, et al. Sclerotherapy for varicose veins: practice guidelines and sclerotherapy procedures. In: Gloviczki P, Yao JST, editors. Handbook of venous disorders. London: Chapman & Hall Medical, p. 337-54.
  8. Laufman H. The veins. Austin, Tex: Silvergirl, Inc; 1986;
  9. Ochsner A, Mahorner H. Varicose veins. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Co; 1939;
  10. Scott HJ. History of venous disease and early management. Phlebology. 1992;(Suppl. 1):2–5
  11. Davat . Du traitement curatif des varices. J d conn med Prat, Par. 1837-1838;5:69–72 102-4
  12. Madelung H. Uber die ausschalung cirsoider Varicen an den unteren Extremitaten. Verhandl Deutsch Gesellsch Chir. 1884;13:114–117
  13. Trendelenburg F. Uber die unterbindung der vena saphena magna bei unterschenkelvaricen. Beitrage zur Klinischen Chirurgie. 1890;7:195–210
  14. Keller WL. A new method of extirpating the internal saphenous and similar veins in varicose condition. New York Medical. 1905;82:385–386
  15. Mayo CH. Treatment of varicose veins. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1906;2:385–388
  16. Babcock WW. A new operation for extirpation of varicose veins of the leg. N Y Med J. 1907;86:153–156
  17. Tavel E. Die Behandlung der Varicen durch die kunstliche Thrombose. Deutsche Atschr Chir. 1912;116:735
  18. Homans J. The operative treatment of varicose veins and ulcers, based upon a classification of these lesions. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1916;22:143–158
  19. Sarin S, Scurr JH, Coleridge Smith PD. Stripping of the long saphenous vein in the treatment of primary varicose veins. Br J Surg. 1994;81:1455–1458
  20. Bergan JJ. Saphenous vein stripping and quality of outcome. Br J Surg. 1996;83:1025–1027
  21. Darke SG. The morphology of recurrent varicose veins. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1992;6:512–517
  22. Tibbs DT. Varicose veins. In:  Morris PJ,  Malt RA editor. Oxford textbook of surgery. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press; 1994;p. 551
  23. Ruckley CV. Operations for varicose veins. In: 5th ed.  Jamieson CW,  Yao JST editor. Vascular surgery. London: Chapman and Hall Medical; 1994;p. 552–557
  24. DeTakats G. Ambulatory ligation of the saphenous vein. JAMA. 1930;94:1194–1197
  25. Hobbs JT. A new approach to short saphenous vein varicosities. In:  Bergan JJ,  Yao JST editor. Surgery of the veins. Orlando, Fla: Grune & Stratton, Inc; 1985;p. 301–322
  26. Hobbs JT. The enigma of the gastrocnemius vein. Phlebology. 1988;3:19–30
  27. McCarthy WJ, Dann C, Pearce WH, Yao JST. Management of sudden profuse bleeding from varicose veins. Surgery. 1993;113:178–183
  28. Callam MJ. Epidemiology of varicose veins. Br J Surg. 1994;81:167–173
  29. Abenhaim L, Kurz X, Norgren L, Clement D. The management of chronic venous disorders of the leg (CVDL): an evidence-based report of an international task force. Montreal: McGill University; 1995;
  30. Perrot-Applanat M, Cohen-Solal K, Milgrom E, Finet M. Progesteron receptor expression in human saphenous veins. Circulation. 1995;92:2975–2983
  31. Hayer M, Caporiccio A, Pages A, Caporiccio G, Toueri MF, Magnan de Barnier B. Lysosomal enzymes and severity of saphen varicosis. Clin Chim Acta. 1991;203:343–348
  32. Shields DA, Andaz SK, Sarin S, Scurr JH, Coleridge Smith PD. Plasma elastase in venous disease. Br J Surg. 1994;81:1496–1499
  33. Gandhi RH, Irizarry E, Nackman GB, Halpern VJ, Mulcare RJ, Tilson MD. Analysis of the connective tissue matrix and proteolytic activity of primary varicose veins. J Vasc Surg. 1993;18:814–820
  34. Wolfe JHN, Morland M, Browse NL. The firbrinolytic activity of varicose veins. Br J Surg. 1979;66:185–187
  35. Shireman PK, McCarthy WJ, Pearce WH, Shively VP, Cipollone M, Kwan HC, et al. Plasminogen activator levels are influenced by location and varicosity in greater saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg. 1996;24:719–724
  36. Hobbs JT, Davies JWL. Detection of venous thrombosis with 131I-labelled fibrinogen in the rabbit. Lancet. 1960;2:134–135
  37. Dexter L, Folch-Pi W. Venous thrombosis: an account of the first documented case. JAMA. 1974;228:195–196
  38. Abramowitz HB, Queral LA, Flinn WR, Nora PF, Peterson LK, Bergan JJ. The use of photoplethysmography in the assessment of venous insufficiency: a comparison to venous pressure measurments. Surgery. 1979;86:434–441
  39. de Takats G. Anticoagulant in surgery. JAMA. 1950;142:527–533
  40. Ascer E, Hanson JN, DePippo P, Lorensen E. Superficial vein thrombophlebitis: a marker of hypercoagulability?. In: Presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of The Society for Vascular Surgery, Chicago, Ill. June 11-12, 1996;
  41. Wakefield TW, Strieter RM, Wilke CA, Kadell AM, Wrobleski SK, Burdick MO, et al.  Venous thrombosis-associated inflammation and attenuation with neutralizing antibodies to cytokines and adhesion molecules. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1995;15:258–268
  42. Wakefield TW, Strieter RM, Downing LJ, Kadell AM, Wilke CA, Burdick MD, et al.  P-selectin and TNF inhibition reduce venous thrombosis inflammation. J Surg Res. 1996;64:26–31
  43. Crafoord C. Heparin and postoperative thrombosis. Acta Chir Scand. 1939;82:319–335
  44. Crafoord C, Jorges JF. Heparin as a prophylactic against thrombosis. JAMA. 1941;116:2831–2835
  45. Levine M, Gent M, Hirsh J, Leclerc J, Anderson D, Weitz J. A comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin adminstered primarily at home with unfractional heparin administered in the hospital for proximal deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:677–681
  46. Hippocrates . In: The genuine works of Hippocrates [Adarns EF, trans.]. vol. 2:New York: Wm. Wood & Co; 1866;p. 305
  47. Wiseman R. Severall chirurgical treatises. London: Rogston & Took; 1676;
  48. Gay J. Varicose disease of lower extremities and its allied disorders. Lettsomian Lecturer of 1867. London: Churchill; 1868;
  49. Schad F. Conrad Jobst. Columbus, Ohio: M.E. Media Words & Pictures Inc; 1979;
  50. Laufman H. Selections from the dermatological writings of Dr. P.G. Unna, The New Sydenham Society, 1893. In:  Laufman H editors. The veins. Austin, Tex: Silvergirl, Inc; 1986;
  51. Linton RR. The communicating veins of the lower leg and the operative technique for their ligation. Ann Surg. 1938;107:582–593
  52. Dodd H. The diagnosis and ligation of incompetent perforating veins. Ann Royal Coll Surg Engl. 1964;34:186–196
  53. Rob C. Surgery of the vascular system. In: Minneapolis: University of Minnesota; 1972;p. 267
  54. Browse NL, Burnand KG. The cause of venous ulceration. Lancet. 1982;2:243–245
  55. Coleridge Smith PD, Scurr JH. Current views on the pathogenesis of venous ulceration. In:  Bergan JJ,  Yao JST editor. Venous disorders. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co; 1991;p. 36–54
  56. Falanga V, Eaglstein WH. The “trap” hypothesis of venous ulceration. Lancet. 1993;341:1006–1007
  57. Grabs AJ, Wakely MC, Nyamekye I, Ghauri ASK, Poskitt KR. Color duplex ultrasonography in the rational management of chronic venous leg ulcers. Br J Surg. 1996;83:1380–1382
  58. Coleridge Smith PD. Impact of duplex ultrasound scanning in varicose vein surgery. In:  Yao JST,  Pearce WH editor. Progress in vascular surgery. Stamford, Conn: Appleton & Lange; 1997;p. 523–533
  59. Warren R, Thayer T. Transplantation of the saphenous vein for post-phlebitic stasis. Surgery. 1954;35:867–876
  60. Husni EA. Clinical experience with femoropopliteal venous reconstruction. In:  Bergan JJ,  Yao JST editor. Venous problems. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishing; 1978;p. 485–492
  61. May R. Der Femoralisbypass beim postthrombotischen Zustandsbild. Vasa. 1972;1:267
  62. Palma EC, Esperon R. Vein transplants and grafts in the surgical treatment of the postphletitic syndrome. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 1960;1:94–107
  63. Dale WA. Crossover vein grafts for relief of iliofemoral venous block. Surgery. 1965;57:608–612
  64. Halliday P, Harris J, May J. Femorofemoral crossover grafts (Palma operation): a long-term follow-up study. In:  Bergan JJ,  Yao JST editor. Surgery of the veins. Orlando, Fla: Grune & Stratton; 1985;p. 241–254
  65. Gruss JD. Venous bypass for chronic venous insufficiency. In:  Bergan JJ,  Yao JST editor. Venous disorders. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 1991;p. 316–332
  66. Ekhof B, Juhan C, Neglen P. Iliofemoral thrombectomy and temporary arteriovenous fistula. In:  Bergan JJ,  Kistner RL editor. Atlas of venous surgery. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 1992;p. 223–231
  67. Winchester DJ, Pearce WH, McCarthy WJ, McGee GS, Yao JST. Popliteal venous aneurysms. Surgery. 1993;114:600–607
  68. Yao JST, Pearce WH, McCarthy WJ. Reconstructive venous surgery. In:  Bergan JJ,  Yao JST editor. Venous disorders. W.B. Saunders; 1991;p. 306–315
  69. Franklin KJ. A monograph on veins. Springfield, Ill: Charles C. Thomas; 1937;
  70. Gottlob R, May R. Venous valves. Vienna: Springer-Verlag; 1986;
  71. Harvey W. An anatomical decscription concerning the movement of the heart and blood in living creatures [Whitteridge G, trans.]. Oxford, U.K: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1976;
  72. Eiseman B, Malette W. An operative technique for the construction of venous valves. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1953;97:731–734
  73. Kistner RL. Surgical repair of the incompetent femoral vein valve. Arch Surg. 1975;110:1336–1342
  74. Johnson ND, Queral LA, Flinn WR, Yao JST, Bergan JJ. Late objective assessment of venous valve surgery. Arch Surg. 1981;116:1461–1466
  75. Antonucci F, Salamonowitz E, Stuckmann G, et al.  Placement of venous stents: clinical experience with a self-expanding prosthesis. Radiology. 1992;183:493–497
  76. Vogelzang RL. Endovascular metallic stents for treatment of superior vena cava syndrome. In:  Yao JST,  Pearce WH editor. Progress in vascular surgery. Stamford, Conn: Appleton & Lange; 1997;p. 515–523
  77. Nazarian GK, Bjarnason H, Dietz CA, Bernadas CA, Hunter DW. Iliofemoral venous stenoses: effectiveness of treatment with metallic endovascular stents. Radiology. 1996;200:193–199
  78. Sichlau MJ, Yao JST, Vogelzang RL. Transcatheter embolotherapy for the treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83:892–896

☆ Reprint requests: James S. T. Yao, MD, PhD, 251 E. Chicago Ave., Suite 628, Chicago, IL 60611.

☆☆ J Vasc Surg 1997;26:727-35.

★ 0741-5214/97/$5.00 + 0 24/6/84604

PII: S0741-5214(97)70083-1

Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 26, Issue 5 , Pages 727-735, November 1997

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution