Comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of endovascular and endoscopic interventions on the gonadal veins in the treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the efficacy and safety of endovascular and endoscopic interventions on the gonadal vein in the treatment of patients with pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS). METHODS: We evaluated the treatment outcomes in 95 patients with PCS who underwent endovascular embolization of gonadal veins (EEGV) (group 1, n = 67) or endoscopic resection of the gonadal veins (ERGV) (group 2; n = 28). A comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of EEGV and ERGV in the treatment of PCS included assessments of their effects on pelvic venous pain, pelvic venous reflux, diameter of the pelvic veins, and restoration of daily activity, as well as treatment safety assessment. Clinical examinations and ultrasound studies of the pelvic veins were repeated at 1, 10, and 30 days, and 36 months after EEGV and ERGV. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale and the Von Korff questionnaire. RESULTS: A decrease in pelvic venous pain intensity was observed at 3.6 ± 1.4 days after EEGV and 2.5 ± 0.8 days after ERGV (P = .49 between the groups). At 1 month after the intervention, a complete relief of pelvic pain was reported by 52 and 25 patients in the EEGV and ERGV groups, respectively. The rates of valvular incompetence of the uterine veins were decreased from 85% in both groups at baseline to 3% in group 1 and 0% in group 2 at 36 months after the intervention, respectively. In the early postprocedural period, pain in the femoral or jugular vein puncture site was reported by eight patients (12%) who underwent EEGV (2.2 ± 0.7 scores). Postembolization syndrome was diagnosed in 13 patients (19.4%). After ERGV, all patients experienced pain in the area of the surgical wound, with a severity of 3.9 ± 0.5 scores. Hematoma at the puncture site of the main vein was observed in 6% of patients after EEGV. Protrusion of coils was identified in three patients (4.5%). The VTE incidence was four times greater in group 1 vs group 2 (14 vs 3 patients; P < .05). The relative risk of this complication after EEGV was 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.146-1.732). In two patients (7.1%) after the bilateral laparoscopic resection of the gonadal veins, an ileus developed. No complications of anesthesia were observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular and endoscopic techniques for decreasing blood flow through the gonadal veins are effective and safe in treating the PCS. The obvious advantages of EEGV are minimal injury and possibility to perform procedure under local anesthesia. The ERGV is associated with at least similar and, in some cases, even superior outcomes, in the terms of significantly (P < .05) shorter time to the postprocedural pain relief and avoiding postembolization syndrome.