Closed incisional negative pressure therapy may reduce surgical site infection rate following endophlebectomy with complementary polytetrafluoroethylene arteriovenous fistula of the common femoral vein.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical desobliteration or endophlebectomy of the common femoral vein during deep venous recanalization with complementary polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) arteriovenous fistula (AVF), may lead to higher rates of surgical site infection (SSI). It has been reported that closed incisional negative pressure wound therapy (cINPT) may decrease SSI rates after different surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to determine the potential effect of cINPT on the SSI rate of femoral endophlebectomy with a complimentary PTFE AVF. METHODS: Patients with recanalization of the femoral-iliac veins and femoral endophlebectomy with a complementary PTFE AVF and postoperative cINPT were identified. SSI, patency, and complication rates were analyzed. RESULTS: This study included 65 patients with a mean age of 41 ± 14 years. The mean procedure time was 240 ± 11.9 minutes. Primary patency rate was 69.2% and secondary patency rate was 78.4%. SSI classified as Szilagyi I, II, and III occurred in 7.6% (n = 5), 3% (n = 2), and 7.6% (n = 5), respectively, with an overall SSI rate of 18.2%. Surgical wound revision with the application of a vacuum pump was required in 10.7% (n = 7). A multivariate analysis showed that the duration of the surgical procedure (P = .003) as well as lymphatic fistulas (P = .044) to have a significant impact on the SSI rate. CONCLUSIONS: Endophlebectomy with complementary PTFE AVF of the femoral vein is related to an increased rate of lymphatic leakage and SSI. Lymphatic fistula and the duration of surgery could be assessed as relevant influencing factors of SSI. Application of cINPT in this surgical setting may reduce the SSI rate. Despite this potential improvement, SSI rates still limit the clinical success of a deep venous recanalization.

A randomised controlled trial comparing venous stenting with conservative treatment in patients with deep venous obstruction: research protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Deep venous obstruction (DVO) has a great impact on quality of life (QoL) comparable to angina pectoris or chronic pulmonary disease. Post-thrombotic scar formation and May-Thurner syndrome (MTS) are the most common causes of DVO. Conventional treatment of DVO focuses on reducing pain or leg swelling by use of (pain) medication and therapeutic elastic stockings. In the past, a venous bypass was offered in severe post-thrombotic cases, but this procedure showed bad clinical and patency outcomes. With the introduction of percutaneous angioplasty and dedicated venous stents new opportunities were created. Deep venous stenting has been shown to be effective in retrospective case series. However, there is no prior research in which QoL after interventional treatment is compared with QoL after conventional treatment. Currently, there is a debate about the true additional value of interventional treatment. We investigate whether those patients who are treated with stenting experience a change in short form 36 (SF-36) and the Veines-QoL/Sym questionnaires compared with conventionally treated patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a randomised trial comparing conservative deep venous management to interventional treatment. A total of 130 patients with post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) or MTS, eligible for interventional percutaneous treatment, who did not have previous deep venous intervention will be included. Patients will be randomised to conservative treatment or venous stenting and stratified for the PTS or MTS subgroup. Conservative treatment consists of either one or a combination of pain medications, manual lymphatic drainage, compression stockings and regular post-thrombotic anticoagulant therapy.The primary outcome is the QoL change after 12 months compared with baseline QoL. Secondary outcomes are QoL changes at 6 weeks, clinical assessment of DVO, recurrence rate of deep venous thrombosis at 6 weeks and 12 months, and the total amount of working days lost. Intervention-specific outcomes include complications and patency. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Academisch ziekenhuis Maastricht/Universiteit Maastricht, The Netherlands (protocol number NLNL55641.068.15 / METC 161008).We aim to publish the results of this study in a peer reviewed journal and present our findings at national or international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study protocol was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT03026049) on 17 January 2017.