The access and invasiveness-based classification of medical procedures to clarify non-invasive from different forms of minimally invasive and open surgery.

BACKGROUND: The rapid development of less invasive and traumatic medical procedures has resulted in a mixture of terms used to describe them, without any agreed definition for each. This is confusing to both medical professionals and patients and can lead to unrealistic patient expectations. The aim of this article is to show the current confused nomenclature and to suggest a new, simple classification based on access and invasiveness (AI) that can be applied to any medical procedure. METHODS: We performed an online search for definitions for 'non-invasive', 'non-surgical', 'minimally invasive', 'minimal access', 'pinhole' and 'keyhole'. We then searched peer-reviewed medical papers (PRMPs) and patient facing websites (PFWs) for the following index procedures, to see which of the original 6 terms were used to describe them: transvaginal ultrasound, sclerotherapy for leg veins, botulinum toxin injections, dermal fillers, endovenous thermal ablation and laparoscopic gall bladder removal. RESULTS: We found a wide variety of definitions for each of the initial terms. In both PRMPs and PFWs, there were a variety of terms used for each index procedure (i.e.: transvaginal ultrasound, injections of sclerotherapy, botulinum toxin or dermal fillers being both 'non-invasive' and 'minimally invasive') showing confusion in the classification of procedures. We suggested the 'AI classification' based on access (A - none, B - natural orifice or C - penetrating an epithelial surface) and invasiveness (1 - none, 2 - surface damage, 3 - needle = <21G, 4 - cannula >21G but not a surgical trocar, 5 - surgical trocars or small incisions and 6 - incisions). CONCLUSION: The current confusion of terms used for procedures that are less invasive than the open surgical alternatives leads to confusion and possible false patient expectations. We have proposed an AI classification that can be applied easily to any procedure, giving a uniform classification for medical professionals and patients to understand.

Endovenous Thermal Ablation of Prominent Central Forehead Veins (Supratrochlear Veins).

BACKGROUND: Many patients complain of prominent vertical veins in the center of their forehead, worse when smiling, wrinkling the forehead in bright light, leaning forward, and when vasodilated in heat, when exercising, or with alcohol. Previous attempts to treat these with external laser, sclerotherapy, and phlebectomy have not been successful. OBJECTIVE: To describe a new method of treating prominent vertical forehead veins and to report the early results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used endovenous laser ablation with a 1470 nm diode laser in 15 patients (F:M 12:3; mean age 38.4 years range 24-69). A bare fiber was used once and a 400-µm single ring radial fiber (Biolitec, Vienna, Austria) in all other cases. Tumescence was placed around the vein and a power of 2 to 3 W with a pullback of 7 to 10 seconds per centimeter. RESULTS: Twelve of the 15 patients (80%) ended up with a good cosmetic result and were satisfied, although 2 needed redo treatment. One patient had minor skin tethering, and 2 (13%) suffered burns-one was the only bare fiber case and the other, the only one where 4 W was used. CONCLUSION: We present a novel technique to treat prominent vertical forehead veins, with apparently good early results.

A Retrospective Cohort Study of Patient Risk Factors and Pelvic Venous Reflux Patterns on Treatment Outcomes With Pelvic Vein Embolisation.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the effects of patient risk factors and pelvic venous reflux (PVR) patterns on treatment outcomes of Pelvic Vein Embolisation (PVE) for Pelvic Venous Disorder (PeVD). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort review assessing population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) for women undergoing PVE for PVR January 2017-January 2021. We identified 190 patients who had completed both questionnaires and who had given consent for their information to be used for research (Median age 46, IQR 40-52). The distribution of pathological pelvic venous reflux found on transvaginal duplex ultrasound (TVDUS) was analysed for all patients. Pre- and post-procedure symptom burden scores were studied using a standardised questionnaire protocol. We used inferential univariate non-parametric statistics to describe our data. RESULTS: 190 cases were reviewed; 62.6% (119/190) premenopausal, 11.1% (21/190) perimenopausal, 25.3% (48/190) postmenopausal and menopausal status not documented 1% (2/190). 10.1% (19/188) were nulliparous (average age 34 years; range 20-55 years). There was a statistically significant improvement in all symptoms and in the appearance of varicosities on TVDUS post-PVE (P < 0.05) of the ovarian vein plexus, uterus plexus, arcuate veins, vaginal wall, peri-urethral, peri-anal, haemorrhoids, labial and proximal thigh. The locations of veins requiring embolisation having demonstrated reflux were analysed; 82.8% (154/186) underwent embolisation of at least one internal iliac vein tributary and ovarian vein embolisation. Age, parity, menopausal status and previous laparoscopy did not affect symptom improvement (P > 0.05). No significant complications such as coil migration were observed. CONCLUSIONS: PVE is an effective treatment for pelvic pain due to PeVD and its diagnosis should not be limited to multiparous women of childbearing age, as a significant proportion of patients who benefited from PVE were either nulliparous and/or postmenopausal.

Current Best Practice in the Management of Varicose Veins.

This article outlines the current best practice in the management of varicose veins. "Varicose veins" traditionally means bulging veins, usually seen on the legs, when standing. It is now a general term used to describe these bulging veins, and also underlying incompetent veins that reflux and cause the surface varicose veins. Importantly, "varicose veins" is often used for superficial venous reflux even in the absence of visible bulging veins. These can be simply called "hidden varicose veins". Varicose veins usually deteriorate, progressing to discomfort, swollen ankles, skin damage, leg ulcers, superficial venous thrombosis and venous bleeds. Patients with varicose veins and symptoms or signs have a significant advantage in having treatment over conservative treatment with compression stockings or venotropic drugs. Small varicose veins or telangiectasia without symptoms or signs can be treated for cosmetic reasons. However, most have underlying venous reflux from saphenous, perforator or local "feeding veins" and so investigation with venous duplex should be mandatory before treatment. Best practice for investigating leg varicose veins is venous duplex ultrasound in the erect position, performed by a specialist trained in ultrasonography optimally not the doctor who performs the treatment. Pelvic vein reflux is best investigated with transvaginal duplex ultrasound (TVS), performed using the Holdstock-Harrison protocol. In men or women unable to have TVS, venography or cross-sectional imaging is needed. Best practice for treating truncal vein incompetence is endovenous thermal ablation. Increasing evidence suggests that significant incompetent perforating veins should be found and treated by thermal ablation using the transluminal occlusion of perforator (TRLOP) approach, and that incompetent pelvic veins refluxing into symptomatic varicose veins in the genital region or leg should be treated by coil embolisation. Bulging varicosities should be treated by phlebectomy at the time of truncal vein ablation. Monitoring and reporting outcomes is essential for doctors and patients; hence, participation in a venous registry should probably be mandatory.