Skip to main content
MedVellum
QuestionsVideosPricing

MedVellum

Fellowship exam preparation across every specialty: source-verified topics, questions in every format, and videos.

Product

  • Specialties
  • Questions
  • Videos
  • Exam tools
  • Pricing

Verification & policy

  • Verified register
  • Editorial policy
  • Privacy
  • Terms

Account

  • Sign in
  • Create account
  • Dashboard
  • Account & billing

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

llms.txtPsychiatry LLM catalogSitemap

Gen Surg SAQsvascular

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.

10 marks12 min2 min readVerification in progress

Target exams

FRACSFRCS(Gen Surg)ABSFRCSC
On this page
Study tools

Target exams

FRACSFRCS(Gen Surg)ABSFRCSC
Prompt
A 34-year-old woman has symptomatic great saphenous reflux and asks whether foam is equal to laser or surgery, a 68-year-old man has a newly healed ulcer with isolated superficial reflux and wants to stop stockings, and a 71-year-old woman has an 8-week active ulcer with great saphenous reflux plus tributaries and a refluxing small saphenous trunk. (A) Counsel the woman on trunk choice with CLASS, Dutch, Cochrane and 10-year numbers. (4 marks) (B) Advise the man on recurrence versus healing with ESCHAR and compression numbers. (3 marks) (C) Plan the woman's ulcer timing, tributaries and small saphenous safety with EVRA, concomitant, anatomy and EHIT numbers. (3 marks)

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
  1. [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
  2. [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
  3. [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
  4. [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
  5. [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
  6. [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
  7. [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
  8. [34]de Moraes Silva MA, et al. Compression for preventing recurrence of venous ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2024.PMID 38451842
  9. [12]Gohel MS, et al. A Randomized Trial of Early Endovenous Ablation in Venous Ulceration. N Engl J Med, 2018.PMID 29688123
  10. [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
  11. [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
  12. [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
  13. [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
  14. [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
PreviousScreening invitation, small-AAA calendar and the ruptured night — intervals, thresholds and strategyvascularNextWells-gated diagnosis with PERC and D-dimer honesty, DOAC-duration arithmetic, and filter-plus-lysis restraintvascular