Recurrent varicose veins of the lower limbs after surgery. Role of surgical technique (stripping vs. CHIVA) and surgeon’s experience

Background. Surgical treatment of varicose veins of the lower limbs resolves symptoms and improves quality of life. However, the high recurrence (20-80%) is a costly and complex issue. Patients and methods. This is a retrospective review of 1489 patients with varicose vein of the lower limbs seen at our hospital between January 1980 and December 2005. The aim is to evaluate the effect of surgical technique (stripping vs. CHIVA) and surgeon’s experience in reducing recurrences. Results. With experienced surgeons, CHIVA appears to be more effective than stripping in reducing the recurrence rate (p <0.05). However, when performed by an inexperienced surgeon the results are far worse than those achieved with stripping. Conclusion. There was a clear reduction in recurrences at 5-10 years with CHIVA than with conventional stripping. However, if performed incorrectly, results are far worse with CHIVA. In fact, good results are far more difficult to achieve with CHIVA than with stripping, which is repeatable and easy to perform.

Diagnosis of intra-abdominal injuries can be challenging in multitrauma patients with associated injuries. Our experience and review of the literature

ntroduction. Trauma is the most common cause of death and disability among patients during the first four decades of life. Abdominal trauma is reported to be the 3rd most common injured region. Clinical examination may be unreliable in the evaluation of these patients especially in the presence of associated injuries. Therefore the use of diagnostic tools is essential in the management of the injured patient with abdominal trauma and additional injuries. Patients and Methods. During 1 year period from December 2010 to November 2011 we recorded the patients that presented to the emergency department of our hospital and were found to suffer from intra-abdominal injuries. These patients were divided in two groups depending on whether they had additional comorbid injuries or not. Several parameters were recorded and compared between the two groups, such as mechanism of injury, general status and hemodynamic stability of the patient on presentation, physical examination, use of imaging modalities and concomitant findings, need for surgical intervention and mortality rates. Furthermore the discrepancy between physical findings and final diagnosis after the use of diagnostic adjuncts is reported. Results. We recorded 31 patients with abdominal trauma. 13 (42%) patients were found to suffer from abdominal trauma and associated injuries (Group I), whereas 18 (58%) presented with abdominal trauma alone (Group II). The patients of the first group presented hemodynamic instability in 38% of cases while the patients of the second in 22% of cases. Reduced consciousness was present in 38% in group I versus 17% in group II. Signs of abdominal injury during clinical examination were present in only 15% in group I versus 72% in group II that represented a remarkable difference between the two groups. Conservative treatment was possible in 15% of patients with additional injuries and in 22% of patients with abdominal injury alone. In group I there were two deaths whereas in group II all patients survived. Conclusion. In patients with abdominal trauma, associated injuries seem to add to the severity of injury and indicate a worse prognosis. Clinical examination is unreliable and misleading in the majority of these patients and the use of diagnostic tools cannot be overemphasized.