A systematic review on isolated coil embolization for pelvic venous reflux.

OBJECTIVE: Pelvic venous reflux (PVR) can present with symptoms such as chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and dyspareunia, resulting in a decreased quality of life among those affected. Percutaneous coil embolization (CE) is a common intervention for PVR; however, the efficacy and safety of its use in isolation has yet to be reviewed. METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from 1990 to July 20, 2020, for studies reporting on adult patients undergoing isolated CE for PVR. Articles not in English, case reports, studies reporting on pediatric patients, and studies not performing isolated CE were excluded. Search, review, and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers (S.S. and M.T.). Changes in pain before and after CE was evaluated through a pooled analysis of visual analogue scale scores in seven studies. RESULTS: A total of 970 patients (range, 3-218, 100% female) undergoing isolated ovarian vein or mixed veins embolization from 20 studies were included. Pooled analysis revealed mean improvements of 5.47 points (95% CI, 4.77-6.16) on the visual analogue scale. Common symptoms such as urinary urgency and dyspareunia reported significant improvements of 78-100% and 60-89.5% respectively. Complications were rare, with coil migration (n = 19) being the most common. Recurrence rates differed based on the varying symptoms and studies, with recurrence in pain 1-2 years after CE ranging from 5.9-25%. Two randomized controlled trials revealed improved clinical outcomes with CE as compared with vascular plugs and hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The current data suggests that isolated CE is technically effective and can result in clinical improvement among patients with PVR. However, further trials are required to ascertain its long-term effects.

The Relationship Between Vein Diameters, Clinical Severity, and Quality of Life: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: The aim was to summarise the evidence for the relationship between vein diameters and clinical severity, and elucidate the relationship between diameters and health related quality of life (HRQoL) METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from 1946 to 31 August 2018. Reference lists of included studies were searched for further relevant papers. Full text studies in English reporting the relationship between great and small saphenous vein diameters and clinical severity and/or HRQoL scores measured using validated instruments were included. All study designs were included. Studies that did not include relationships between these parameters, non-English studies, and studies focusing on non-truncal veins were excluded. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: Eleven eligible studies were identified, reporting on 2,732 limbs (range 22-681). Four studies correlated truncal vein diameter with both clinical severity and HRQoL, while seven reported only on clinical severity measures. Multiple instruments were used to quantify HRQoL and clinical severity. Seven studies assessed the relationship with CEAP class, with the majority observing a positive correlation between vein diameter and disease severity. Four studies found weak correlations with VCSS, with one showing correlations with VCSS components. No significant relationship between diameters and HRQoL scores was reported. One study also revealed no correlation with Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire improvements post-treatment. The majority of studies failed to include C0 and C1 participants. CONCLUSIONS: While further studies are required to improve the level of evidence, the existing literature suggests that truncal vein diameters correlate with clinical severity. Diameters are a poor predictor of HRQoL, with no relationship to patients' perceived impact of chronic venous disease. As such, vein diameter should not be used as a measure to decide who needs venous intervention.