Hrev_master Veins and Lymphatics 2015; volume 4:5246 [Veins and Lymphatics 2015; 4:5246] [page 53] Laser-assisted strategy for reflux abolition in a modified CHIVA approach Sergio Gianesini, Erica Menegatti, Michele Zuolo, Mirko Tessari, Paolo Spath, Simona Ascanelli, Savino Occhionorelli, Paolo Zamboni Vascular Diseases Center, University of Ferrara, Italy Abstract The aim of this study was to assess feasibility and efficacy of an endovenous laser (EL) assist- ed saphenous-sparing strategy in chronic venous disease (CVD). Fourteen CVD patients (C2,3,4s Ep As Pr1,2,3) underwent a sapheno- femoral junction (SFJ) treatment by EL just from below the superficial epigastric vein down- ward for a limited tract, together with a flush ligation of the incompetent tributaries of the great saphenous vein (GSV) along the leg. The following GSV parameters were assessed 15 cm below the SFJ: reflux time, caliber, peak systolic velocity (PSV), end diastolic velocity (EDV), resistance index (RI). Venous clinical severity score and the Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical, and Pathophysio logical (CEAP) classification clinical classes were assessed. At 1 year follow up 3 cases were considered failures because of a GSV thrombosis, even if they presented a GSV recanalization with a laminar flow within at the 2 years follow-up. Eleven procedures succeeded because neither minor nor major peri-procedur- al complications were reported, apart 2 cases of self-healing bruising. In these last 11 cases the procedure led to a GSV reflux suppression (from 3.1±0.4 s to a retrograde laminar draining flow), to a GSV caliber reduction (from 9.4±0.5 to 3.1±0.2 cm, P<0.001), to a PSV reduction (from 50.2±4.6 to 18.4±3.5 cm/s, P<0.001), to a RI reduction (from 0.9±0.2 to 0.51±0.2, P<0.005) and to an oscillatory flow suppression (EDV from �–8.9±1.6 to 6.2±2.3 cm/s, P<0.001). Both CEAP and venous clinical severity score improved from 3 to 1 (P<0.001) and from 7±2 to 2±1 (P<0.05), respectively. The GSV flow reap- peared below the shrunk tract draining into the re-entry perforator. Sapheno-femoral reflux suppression can be obtained by just a GSV seg- mental closure. An almost 80% of success rate of the present investigation paves the way for an even wider diffusion of endovenous techniques, moreover erasing the surgical requirements for those who would like to perform a saphenous- sparing strategy. In this way new devices could be used inside equally innovative strategies. Introduction In the last decade, endovenous techniques (ET) have been offering us more powerful and precise devices for the great saphenous vein (GSV) ablation.1 However this technology advancement has not been followed by an equivalent strategy innovation. Whatever brand new tool is used, whenever ablating the GSV, the strategy choice is the GSV abolition, as in the surgical stripping. The most recent reviews point out a possible better pain control and post-operative quality of life following the ET, but at the same time provide overlapping outcomes in reflux sup- pression whenever making a comparison with the surgical GSV ablation.2 Conversely, through the years, CHIVA saphenous sparing surgical techniques have demonstrated their efficacy as an alternative strategy option to deliver an improved out- come.3 It is possible to postulate that a not only technically but also strategically less aggres- sive approach could reduce the recurrence risk.4,5 In 2013 we reported the first two patients in which we successfully implied this new alter- native approach to combine the laser-based mini-invasiveness together with the saphe- nous-sparing efficacy.6 In these patients the incompetent sapheno-femoral junction (SFJ) was treated by an endovenous laser (EL) aim- ing for the obliteration of only the proximal segment to induce the closure from below the superficial epigastric vein (SEV) downward for a maximum of 10 cm of GSV. In this way the rest of the distal GSV segment remains patent/intact to allow the draining reversely toward a re-entry perforator located distally on the same GSV.6 Aim of the present study is to answering those hemodynamics questions that were raised based on our preliminary experience. Materials and Methods This study included 14 chronic venous dis- ease (CVD) cases (M/F: 1/1) (C2,3,4s Ep As Pr1,2,3). Two patients were C2, 10 were C3, 2 C4. The mean pre-operative venous clinical severity score (VCSS) was 7±2.7 All the patients presented incompetent trib- utaries of the GSV together with a SFJ reflux at the femoral side of the terminal valve, both at the Valsalva and calf muscle compression/relaxation maneuver.8 In all the cases the re-entry perforator was on the GSV. According to the saphenous-sparing termi- nology all the cases were type I+N3 shunts.9,10 All the patients underwent an echo-color- Doppler assessment and pre-operative map- ping on the same procedural day, eliciting the flow both by active dorsiflexion (Wunstorf maneuver) and manual compression/relax- ation maneuvers (Figure 1). The following GSV parameters were assessed 15 cm below the SFJ: reflux time, diameter, peak systolic velocity (PSV), end diastolic velocity (lowest detectable velocity at the end of the muscular diastole) (EDV) and resistance index (RI). PSV represents the highest velocity assessed during the muscular systole. EDV is the lowest velocity value at the end of the diastolic phase.11-15 RI is the ratio among the difference of PSV and EDV divided by the PSV according to the formula (PSV- EDV)/PSV.11,13 The same parameters were assessed at 1- week, 1-6-12-month follow-ups, together with a Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical, and Pathophysiological (CEAP) classification and VCSS. (Table 1) Data were calculated as mean±standard deviation. The results were compared by using Student’s t-test or Mann-Whithney as appropri- ate. Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05. Operative procedure All the patients underwent a flush ligation of the incompetent GSV tributaries along the leg. The SFJ was treated by an EL segmental clo- sure according to the following protocol: percu- taneous GSV access at the distal third of the thigh with the patient in a reverse- Trendelenburg position, insertion of a 600 �m radial fiber (1470 nm, 6W). Correspondence: Sergio Gianesini, University of Ferrara, via Aldo Moro 8, 44100 Cona (FE), Italy. Tel.: +39.0532.236524 - Fax: +39.0532.237144. E-mail: sergiogianesini@hotmail.com Key words: Saphenous-sparing strategy; endove- nous laser; chronic venous disease. Conflict of interest: the authors declare no poten- tial conflict of interest. Conference presentation: accepted for poster presentation at the 2014 American College of Phlebology Meeting, November 7-2014, Phoenix, AZ, USA. Received for publication: 22 April 2015. Revision received: 17 June 2015. Accepted for publication: 18 June 2015. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (by-nc 3.0). ©Copyright S. Gianesini et al., 2015 Licensee PAGEPress, Italy Veins and Lymphatics 2015; 4:5246 doi:10.4081/vl.2015.5246 No n c om me rci al us e o nly Article [page 54] [Veins and Lymphatics 2015; 4:5246] A tumescent anesthesia (lidocaine 2% 5 cc + sodium bicarbonate 5 cc + saline solution 10 cc) was administered perivenously by a 25 G needle, under echo-color-Doppler (ECD) guid- ance, just along the segmental GSV tract to be shrunk below the SEV. The EL was then activat- ed, shrinking the GSV at 200 J/cm for the first cm and at 100 J/cm for the following tract. An above-knee 20 mmHg elastic stocking com- pression was prescribed to all the patients for three days and nights, then just during the daytime for the following three weeks. All the patients gave their informed consent. Results Mean follow-up was 1 year. Three cases were considered the failures because of a thrombosis that developed distally to the shrunk segment of GSV. Nevertheless in these three cases, at the 2 years follow up, at the ECD scanning the thrombosis disappeared resulting in a significantly reduced GSVs (from 9.8±0.3 mm to 2.8±0.2 mm), inhabited by a laminar flow draining retrogradely into the re- entry perforator. At the 1 year follow up the remaining eleven procedures were considered successful with neither minor nor major peri-procedural com- plications except 2 cases of mild bruising that rapidly resolved spontaneously. In these last 11 cases the procedure led to a GSV reflux suppression, to a GSV caliber reduction (from 9.4±0.5 to 3.1±0.2 mm, P<0.001), to a PSV reduction (from 50.2±4.6 to 18.4±3.5 cm/s, P<0.001), to a RI reduction (from 0.9±0.2 to 0.5±0.2, P<0.005) and to a oscillatory flow suppression (EDV from �8.9±1.6 to 6.2±.3 cm/s, P<0.001)(inversion of the end diastolic value from negative to posi- tive, thus from refluxing bidirectional to lami- nar monodirectional flow). Both CEAP and VCSS improved from 3 to 1 (P<0.001) and from 7±2 to 2±1 (P<0.05), respectively (Table 1). The shrunk GSV seg- ment was 6.8±1.7 cm long and always distal to the SEV. The GSV flow reappeared below the shrunk tract as a laminar reverse drainage directed toward the re-entry perforator focused on the same GSV. The total energy delivery recorded the fol- lowing parameters: laser on-time 111±45 s, total joules delivered: 671±67 J. The average tumescence volume was 69.2±8.3 cc. At 1-year follow-up a single recurrence was reported in the flush ligated GSV tributaries, without clinical complaints and only ECD detectable. The remaining ten cases demonstrated a laminar drainage toward the same GSV tribu- tary re-entry perforator. GSV reflux was abolished in all the eleven cases. Discussion The constantly increasing demand for mini- invasiveness in saphenous refluxes treatment is surely pushing the phlebology world toward ET.16,17 In the last decade, ablative surgery has assisted to its progressive replacement by the foam sclerotherapy, radiofrequency, and endovenous lasers.18 Despite some analysis biases coming out from a not totally homoge- neous study population, reliable reviews sug- gest ET to be as effective as the surgery in the treatment of saphenous vein refluxes.2,19 Moreover, ET has been considered not only as efficacious as stripping in the reflux sup- pression, but also able to provide a faster and less painful post-operative course.20-22 Following the randomized controlled trials and network meta-analysis pointing out the endovenous performances, up to now, in tech- nically suitable cases, the international guide- lines favor ablative ET over open surgery with a Grade 1 B evidence.23 The same literature confirms that techno- logical advancement through the last decade has offered a better chance of improved treat- ment in terms of mini-invasiveness of the pro- cedure and post-operative quality of life. But at the same time it states that the successful rate in reflux suppression hasn’t been changed sig- nificantly from the old surgical ablative proce- dure time.20-22 On the contrary, CHIVA saphenous-sparing varicose vein strategy have produced long-term efficacy data through the years, claiming both better long term outcomes and competitiveness with the surgical ablative option.24-41 On this basis, we thought to explore the feasibility and outcome of a brand new strategy combining the laser mini-invasiveness together with the Table 1. Hemodynamic parameters assessment: pre-operative (PRE-OP) and 1-year fol- low-up post-operative (POST-OP) great saphenous vein hemodynamic parameters assess- ment at 15 cm from the sapheno-femoral junction (SFJ) (P<0.05). Hemodynamics parameters PRE-OP POST-OP (15 cm below the SFJ) RT (s) 3.1±0.4 Retrograde laminar draining flow Diam (mm) 9.4±0.5 3.1±0.2 PSV (cm/s) 50.2±4.6 18.4±3.5 EDV (cm/s) –8.9±1.6 6.2±2.3 RI 0.9±0.2 0.51±0.2 CEAP 3 1 VCSS 7±2 2±1 RT, reflux time; PSV, peak systolic velocity; EDV, end diastolic velocity; RI, resistance index; CEAP, Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical, and Pathophysiological classification; VCSS, venous clinical severity score. Figure 1. Preoperative assessment: all the patients underwent to a pre-operative echo-color-Doppler assessment and map- ping on the same procedural day. GSV, great saphenous vein; SFJ, sapheno- femoral junction; EPS, external superficial epigastric vein.No n c om me rci al us e o nly Article [Veins and Lymphatics 2015; 4:5246] [page 55] saphenous-sparing long-term efficacy. As we published previously, two cases of SFJ refluxes were treated successfully with a saphenous-sparing principle delivering a seg- mental GSV closure below the SEV downward for a 10 cm and 7 cm long tract, respectively, to maintain physiological retrograde drainage through a well preserved GSV segment.6 The present investigation follows these two cases to answer some of the many hemodynamic questions which were raised through the pre- vious publication. First of all, the SFJ incompetence treatment was achievable by just an only segmental clo- sure which created a not refluxing but rather reversed flow, draining the preserved GSV trunk toward a previously selected re-entry per- forator (Figure 2A and B). The presence of a re-entry perforator on the GSV (around 40% of reflux patterns)10 is mandatory for the proce- dure. Alternatively, a significant stasis occurs leading to the thrombotic risk. The oscillatory flow suppression is testified by the EDV post-operative inversion, thus char- acterizing a laminar flow that according to the recent literature leads to an anti-inflammatory endothelial phenotype.42 The post-operative GSV laminar flow signif- icantly (Figure 3A) differs from the pre-opera- tive reflux (Figure 3B). Pre-operative a multi- directional flow can be detected, together with a high PSV and an inverted EDV (Figure 3A). After the SFJ EV closure the pressure gradient is suppressed, in favor of drainage of the GSV blood into the re-entry perforator, so leading to the assessment of a monodirectional and slow flow in which the EDV presents the same PSV direction (Figure 3B). The amount of shrunk centimeters does not look like to be the parameter that really mat- ters for the maintenance of a draining GSV, rather it is the flow coming from the GSV trib- utaries distal to the shrunk tract. The failure that occurred in 3 out of 14 cases (21.4%) was associated to a GSV thrombosis that developed distally to the shrunk tract. This fact led us to reason about the main factors to take into account whenever planning an EL assisted- hemodynamic correction of the saphenous sys- tem. For example, the Giacomini vein was not detected in these 3 unsuccessful cases in con- trast to the other 11 successful cases. Together with the re-entry perforators hemodynamics, this vein features could represent a fundamen- tal data to be verified before performing this new hemodynamic procedure. Indeed, the role of Giacomini vein in lower limbs for venous drainage have drawn increasing attention late- ly (Figure 4A and B).42-48 Moreover, the GSV recanalization at 2 years Figure 2. Post-operative flow: preserved great saphenous vein (GSV) (A) trunk presenting a laminar flow from below the shrunk tract downward toward its re-entry perforator (B). Figure 4. Giacomini vein: pre- (A) and post-operative (B) flow patterns. (A) pre-operatively a closed circuit (red line) is formed starting by the sapheno-femoral junction (SFJ) incompetent leak- ing point. A reflux is present into the great saphenous vein (GSV) until the confluence with a perforating vein (PV) which drains into the deep system (DS). At the following muscular systo-dias- tolic push the blood will go back into the incompetent SFJ. Giacomini vein (GV) presents a competent flow. (B) After laser assisted segmental SFJ ablation the closed circuit is interrupted, leading to a laminar monodirectional flow into the spared GSV and draining the same GSV into the PV (green line). SCXV, superficial circumflex vein; SEV, superficial epigastric vein; SPV, superficial pudendal vein. Figure 3. Pre and post-operative flow changes: (A) Pre-operative- ly, the great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux is characterized by a high peak systolic velocity (PSV), an inverted end diastolic veloc- ity (EDV) and an evident turbulence. (B) Post-operatively, the EDV presents the same PSV direction and the flow decreases its mean velocity, being drained into the re-entry perforator. RT, reflux time. No n c om me rci al us e o nly Article [page 56] [Veins and Lymphatics 2015; 4:5246] in these three cases of post-operative thrombo- sis, together with the resolution of the pre- operative reflux and the vein caliber reduction, offer a preliminary data for future hemody- namics investigations. Whenever compared to a traditional surgical saphenous-sparing option, the herein presented technique is surely less cost-effective for the need of the laser device and fiber acquisition. Nevertheless a deeper cost-analysis is recom- mended to analyzing the indirect income derived by the greater numbers of procedures performed daily because of the faster procedur- al time coming from the endovenous rather than surgical act. Certainly, this new hemodynamic approach mandates further investigations and the here- in reported successful outcome (79.6%) will contribute on better understanding for this hemodynamic approach as well as new impli- cation of the mini-invasive technology into the CVD field.49,50 Another topic of further research is the per- centage of candidates to the strategy. Considering that in CVD almost half of the sapheno-femoral junctions are competent and that a re-entry perforator must be found on the GSV in order to apply this strategy, future investigations should be addressed to deter- mine the effective role of the GSV tributaries along the leg in maintaining a draining flow. The availability of a saphenous sparing option also for not surgical operators could lead to an increasing interest toward advanced hemodynamics, so rising also the interest toward advanced scanning in phlebology. This could lead both to an age of not only new devices but also of innovative strategies and to a collective better understanding of the intricate venous drainage pathophysiology. References 1. Guex JJ. Endovenous chemical (and phys- ical) treatments for varices: what’s new? Phlebology 2014;29:45-8. 2. Nesbitt C, Eifell RKG, Coyne P, et al. Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus con- ventional surgery for great saphenous vein varices (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;10: CD005624. 3. Bellmunt-Montoya S, Escribano JM, Dilme J, Martinez-Zapata MJ. CHIVA method for the treatment of chronic venous insuffi- ciency. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;7:CD009648. 4. Disselhoff BC, Der Kinderen DJ, Kelder JC, Moll F. Randomized clinical trial com- paring endovenous laser ablation of the great Saphenous vein with and without ligation of the sapheno- femoral junction: 2-year results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008;36:713-8. 5. Van Rij AM, Jones GT, Hill GB, Jiang P. Neovascualrization and recurrent varicose veins: more histologic and ultrasound evi- dence. J Vasc Surg 2004;40:296-302. 6. Gianesini S, Menegatti E, Zuolo M, et al. Short endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein in a modified CHIVA strategy. Veins and Lymphatics 2013;2:e21. 7. Rutherford RB, Padberg FT, Comoerota AJ, et al. Venous severity scoring: an adjunct to venous outcome assessment. J Vasc Surg 2000;31:1307-12. 8. Cappelli M, Molino Lova R, Ermini S, Zamboni P. Hemodynamics of the saphe- no- femoral junction. Patterns of reflux and their clinical implications. Int Ang 2004;23:25-8. 9. Franceschi C. Theorie et pratique de la cure conservatrice et hemodynamique de l’insuffisance veinuse en ambulatoire. Paris: Editions de L’armancon; 1988. 10. Franceschi C. Venous hemodynamics. New York: Nova Science Publisher; 2009. 11. Baumgartner RW, Nirkko AC, Müri RM, Gönner F. Transoccipital power-based color- coded duplex sonography of cerebral sinus- es and veins. Stroke 1997;28:1319-23. 12. Stolz DE, Kaps M, Kern A, Babacan SS. Reference data from 130 volunteers tran- scranial color-coded duplex sonography of intracranial veins and sinuses. Stroke 1999;30:1070-5. 13. Zamboni P, Menegatti E, Bartolomei I, et al. Intracranial venous haemodynamics in multiple sclerosis. Curr Neurovasc Res 2007;4:252-8. 14. Zamboni P, Menegatti E, Pomidori L, et al. Does thoracic pump influence the cerebral venous return? J Appl Physiol (1985) 2012;112:904-10. 15. Tisato V, Zamboni P, Menegatti E, et al. Endothelial PDGF-BB produced ex vivo cor- relates with relevant hemodynamic parameters in patients affected by chronic venous disease. Cytokine 2013;63:92-6. 16. Almeida J, Kabnick L, Wakefield T, et al. Management trends for chronic venous insufficiency across the United States: a report from the American Venous Registry. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymph Disord 2013; 1:100. 17. Sadek M, Kabnick LS, Berland T, et al. Update on endovenous laser ablation. Perspect Vasc Endovasc Ther 2011;23:233-7. 18. Rasmussen LH, Lawaetz M, Bjoern L, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam scleortherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg 2011;98:1079-87. 19. Van den Bos R, Arends L, Kockaert M, et al. Endovenous therapies of lower extremity varicosities: a meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg 2009;49:230-9. 20. Rasmussen LH, Lawaetz M, Bjoern L, et al. Randomized clinical trial comapring endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequen- cy, foam sclerotherapy and surgical strip- ping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg 2011;98:1079-87. 21. Carrol C, Hummel S, Leaviss J, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effective- ness of minimally invasive techniques to manage varicose veins: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2013;17:1-141. 22. Carrol C, Hummel S, Leaviss J, et al. Systematic review, network meta-analysis and exploratory cost-effectiveness model of randomized trials of minimally invasive techniques versus surgery for varicose veins. Br J Surg 2014;101:1040-52. 23. Gloviczki P, Gloviczki ML. Guidelines for the management of varicose veins. Phlebology 2012;27:2-9. 24. Carandina S, Mari C, De Palma M, et al. Varicose vein stripping vs haemodynamic correction (CHIVA): A long term ran- domised trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008;35:230-7. 25. Pares JO, Juan J, Tellez R, et al. Varicose vein surgery: stripping versus the CHIVA method: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2010;251:624-31. 26. Maeso J, Juan JJ, Escribano JM, et al. Comparison of clinical outcome of strip- ping and CHIVA for treatment of varicose veins in the lower extremities. Ann Vasc Surg 2001;15:661-5. 27. Iborra-Ortega E, Barajau-Urrea E, Vila-Coll R, et al. Comparative study of two surgical techniques in the treatment of varicose veins of the lower extremitities: results after five years of follow up. Angiologia 2006;58:459-68. 28. Mowatt-Larssen E, Shortell C. Treatment of primary varicose veins has changed with the introduction of new techniques. Semin Vasc Surg 2012;25:18-24. 29. Mowatt-Larssen E, Shortell C. CHIVA. Semin Vasc Surg 2010;23:118-22. 30. GianesiniS, Occhionorelli S, Menegatti E, et al. CHIVA strategy in chronic venous disease treatment: instructions for users. Phlebology 2014 [Epub ahead of print]. 31. Zamboni P, Cisno C, Marchetti F, et al. Reflux elimination without any ablation or disconnection of the saphenous vein. A haemodynamic model for surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2001;21:361-9. 32. Escribano JM, Juan J, Bofill R, et al. Durability of reflux-elimination by a mini- mal invasive CHIVA procedure on patients with varicose veins. A 3- year prospective case study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2003;25:159-63. No n c om me rci al us e o nly Article [Veins and Lymphatics 2015; 4:5246] [page 57] 33. Zamboni P, Escribano JM. Regarding reflux elimination without any ablation or disconnection of the saphenous vein. A haemodynamic model for surgery and durability of reflux-elimination by a mini- mal invasive CHIVA procedure on patients with varicose veins. a 3- year prospective case study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2004; 28:567-8. 34. Zamboni P, Gianesini S, Menegatti E, et al. Great saphenous varicose vein surgery without saphenofemoral junction discon- nection. Br J Surg 2010;97:820-5. 35. Zamboni P, Cisno C, Marchetti F, et al. Minimally invasive surgical management of primary venous ulcers vs. compression treatment: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2003;25:313-8. 36. Mendoza E. CHIVA 1988-2008. Review of studies on the CHIVA method and its development in different countries. Gefasschirurgie 2008;13:249-56. 37. Milone M, Salvatore G, Maietta P, et al. Recurrent varicose veins of the lower limbs after surgery. Role of surgical tech- nique (stripping vs CHIVA) and surgeon’s experience. G Chir 2001;32:460-3. 38. Mendoza E, Berger V, Zollmann C, et al. Diameter-reduction of the great saphe- nous vein and common femoral vein after CHIVA. Phlebologie 2011;40:73-8. 39. Zamboni P, Marcellino MG, Cappelli M, et al. Saphenous vein sparing surgery: Principles, techniques and results. J Cardiovasc Surg 1998;39:151-62. 40. Pittaluga P, Chastanet S, Rea B, Barbe R. Midterm results of the surgical treatment of varices by phlebectomy with conserva- tion of a refluxing saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg 2009;50:107-18. 41. Pittaluga P, Chastanet S, Locret T, Barbe R. The effect of isolated phlebectomy on reflux and diameter of the great saphe- nous vein: a prospective study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2010;40:122-8. 42. Tisato V, Zauli G, Gianesini S, et al. Modulation of circulating cytokine- chemokine profile in patients affected by chronic venous insufficiency undergoing surgical hemodynaic correction. J Immunol Res 2014;2014:473765. 43. Atasoy MM, Gumus B, Caymaz I, Oguzkurt L. Targeted endovenous treatment of Giacomini vein insufficiency-associated varicose disease: considering the reflux patterns. Diagn Interv Radiol 2014 [Epub ahead of print]. 44. Prakash, Kumari J, Nishanth Reddy N, Kalyani Rao P, et al. A review of literature along with a cadaveric study of the preva- lence of the Giacomini vein (the thigh extension of the small saphenous vein) in Indian population. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2008;49:537-9. 45. Barberini F, Cavallini A, Caggiati A. The thigh extension of the small saphenous vein: a hypothesis about its significance, based on morphological, embryological and anatomo- comparative reports. Ital J Anat Embryol 2006;111:187-98. 46. Georgiev M, Kenneth Myers A, Belcaro G. The thigh extension of the lesser saphe- nous vein: from Giacomini’s observations to ultrasound scan imaging. J Vasc Surg 2003;37:558-63. 47. Bush RG, Hammond K. Treatment of incompetent vein of Giacomini (thigh extension branch). Ann Vasc Surg 2007; 21:245-8. 48. Delis KT, Knaggs AL, Khodabakhsh P. Prevalence, anatomic patterns, valvular competence, and clinical significance of the Giacomini vein. J Vasc Surg 2004; 40:1174-83. 49. Passariello F. Office Based CHIVA (OB Chiva). Acta Phlebol 2011;12:26-7. 50. Ferracani E. Internal laser valvuloplasty and venous remodelling using 1470 laser. Initial experience. Flebologia 2013;3:39-40. No n c om me rci al us e o nly