Gen Surg SAQs · vascular
Trunk choice by CLASS, ulcer healing versus recurrence, and tributary timing with nerve honesty
Fellowship SAQ on great saphenous trunk choice with CLASS arithmetic and long-term honesty, ulcer recurrence-versus-healing counselling with ESCHAR and compression cover, and active-ulcer timing with tributary and small saphenous safety.
On this page
Study tools
Target exams
Write your answer
Saved on this device. No marking — you are the marker.
Model answer
(A) The 34-year-old choosing a trunk — laser or surgery first, foam priced honestly (4 marks). Quote CLASS (798 patients): foam gains less disease-specific quality of life than surgery at 6 months (effect size −1.74) but matches laser, while procedural complications run 1% laser against 7% foam and 8% surgery, truncal ablation favours surgery and laser equally over foam, and foam/laser return patients to behaviours faster.[15] Confirm with the Dutch 3-arm (240 patients): 1-year anatomic success 88.5% laser, 88.2% surgery, 72.2% foam, with complications low and equal.[17] Add Cochrane (13 trials, 3081 patients): laser-versus-surgery recurrence tied, with laser halving neovascularisation (OR 0.05) and technical failure (OR 0.29).[19] Close with the decade: the same Pronk cohort shows 10-year duplex groin-recurrence freedom of 73 versus 44% favouring stripping with reinterventions at 17 versus 36%, and the 14-year cohort shows foam reinterventions at 56.4 versus 13.2 versus 8.2% — so offer laser or stripping first and foam for convenience with repeat-procedure consent.[23][29]
(B) The healed ulcer wanting freedom — recurrence is the enemy, stockings the cover (3 marks). Separate healing from recurrence with ESCHAR (500 legs): 24-week healing tied 65 versus 65%, but 12-month recurrence more than halved at 12 versus 28% with minimal equal harm — and at 4 years healing still tied (89 vs 93%) while recurrence runs 56 versus 31% with ulcer-free time at 78 versus 71%.[9][10] Refuse the stocking holiday with Cochrane (8 trials, 1995 participants): European class-3 stockings halve reulceration against none (RR 0.46), and UK class-2 carries 1.55-fold the reulceration of class-3 — higher pressure prevents more ulcers while fewer legs tolerate it.[34]
(C) The active ulcer with tributaries and small saphenous reflux — ablate early, combine tributaries, respect the nerve (3 marks). Time ablation by EVRA (450 patients, 20 centres): ablation within 2 weeks of randomisation versus deferred — healing hazard 1.38, median 56 against 82 days, 24-week healing 85.6 against 76.3%, ulcer-free 306 against 278 days.[12] Combine tributaries by default: 6 randomised trials with 432 patients show immediate phlebectomy-or-foam with truncal ablation cuts reintervention to one-third (RR 0.33) with better 6-week AVVQ and 12-month VCSS and no safety penalty — staging only where the elimination test promises trunk rescue (50% reflux-free at 1 year, >65% when positive).[26][25] Treat the small saphenous trunk nerve-first: the sural nerve lies within 5 mm in 70% of proximal and 90% of distal legs with fascia shielding in 95% proximally but 15% distally, so favour the proximal third; quote flush-laser heat-thrombosis at 2.5% class-3 plus 0.2% class-4 with zero embolism/thrombosis observed, and cover high-thrombosis-risk legs with 1–2 weeks of low-molecular-weight heparin by consensus.[38][36][37]
References14ShowHide
- [15]Brittenden J, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation and surgery for varicose veins: results from the Comparison of LAser, Surgery and foam Sclerotherapy (CLASS) randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess, 2015.PMID 25858333
- [17]Biemans AA, et al. Comparing endovenous laser ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins. J Vasc Surg, 2013.PMID 23769603
- [19]Nesbitt C, et al. Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus open surgery for great saphenous vein varices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014.PMID 25075589
- [23]Eggen CAM, et al. Ten-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial comparing saphenofemoral ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein with endovenous laser ablation (980 nm) using local tumescent anesthesia. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord, 2022.PMID 34450354
- [29]Rahman T, et al. Fourteen Year Outcomes of a Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Endovenous Laser Ablation, High Ligation and Stripping, and Ultrasound Guided Foam Sclerotherapy for Great Saphenous Varicose Veins. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2026.PMID 41633433
- [9]Barwell JR, et al. Comparison of surgery and compression with compression alone in chronic venous ulceration (ESCHAR study): randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2004.PMID 15183623
- [10]Gohel MS, et al. Long term results of compression therapy alone versus compression plus surgery in chronic venous ulceration (ESCHAR): randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 2007.PMID 17545185
- [34]de Moraes Silva MA, et al. Compression for preventing recurrence of venous ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2024.PMID 38451842
- [12]Gohel MS, et al. A Randomized Trial of Early Endovenous Ablation in Venous Ulceration. N Engl J Med, 2018.PMID 29688123
- [26]Xie Y, et al. Combined endovenous ablation with phlebectomy or foam sclerotherapy versus endovenous ablation alone for lower limb varicose veins: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Phlebology, 2026.PMID 41990331
- [25]Biemans AA, et al. The effect of single phlebectomies of a large varicose tributary on great saphenous vein reflux. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord, 2014.PMID 26993185
- [38]Kerver AL, et al. The surgical anatomy of the small saphenous vein and adjacent nerves in relation to endovenous thermal ablation. J Vasc Surg, 2012.PMID 22503186
- [36]Burta MC, et al. Assessing Endovenous Heat-Induced Thrombosis in Flush Endovenous Laser Ablation: A Study on Incidence, Risk Factors, and Patient Outcomes. J Clin Med, 2025.PMID 40943923
- [37]Dattani N, et al. Reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism following superficial endovenous treatment: A UK and Republic of Ireland consensus study. Phlebology, 2020.PMID 32611228