Varicose veins are the most common vein disease and has been known for hundreds of years. Hippocrates himself (469-375 BC) described in his book "About Ulce" the destruction of a varicose vein with a rod. Today, she suffers one in three women and one in five men from varicose veins, from obvious, that is, arranged veins or spider veins.
In most, the disease remains asymptomatic, but it is often manifested by symptoms such as a feeling of "weight" in the feet, swelling, pain, skin hypertension and in few cases, if not cured, it can evolve by the appearance of wounds and ulcers that are difficult to cure.
Surgery
Surgical treatment of varicose veins has experienced many evolutionary procedures in the last century, and specifically since 1907 where Babcock first described the classic open surgical method that was eradicating the inadequate portion of the clear vein. This was - along with its self -evolutionary evolutionary mutations - for about a century of reference to the treatment of varicose veins.
Treatment with laser
new bloodless intravaginal methods have made their appearance that we recognize - unilaterally, but not incorrectly - with the term "laser", which with their results have offered a very remarkable alternative to classical open surgical treatment.
These are not removed from the "sick" vein, but its lumen is burn, so the reciprocal flow is stopped responsible for the manifestation of the disease. For the story, let me mention that in addition to the laser, the bloodthirsty radiofrequency is technically similar and bibliographic as effective.
Happy methods have dominated so much in the daily life of varicose veins that one wonders "does the classic open surgical method still have a reason for existence"?
Comparison of the two methods
The classic method, when there is a surgical indication, is always applicable and medically a proper choice. But the large surgical trauma in relation to the microwaves (up to 5mm) of modern methods - though it does not affect a statistically significantly rehabilitation - causes complications associated with it and amount to around 3 - 10 % (light pain, infection, secondary healing, etc.). In addition, lesions have been reported in surface nerves usually small (7 - 39%) as well as deep venous thrombosis (0.5 - 5%).
On the contrary, the "bloodless" methods are not always applicable. The main restrictions are the distance of the vein from the skin which by instructions should not be less than 1 centimeter the diameter of the vein that should not exceed 1.5 cm, its course under the skin which is advisable not to have significant helicies and have not been preceded. When there is none of the above limitations the complications are minimal.
Indicatively, deep down thrombosis (<0.5%), skin burns (<0.5%), hallucinations (3%), skin hypertension (2%), transient extrusion (6%) and thrombophlebitis (1%).
Reappearance of the disease
Both methods share - for different reasons - the same percentage of relapses (ie the disease), about 15%.
Conclusion
So, because of the anatomical and morphological constraints of new bloodless methods, we can summarize that the classic open method has not been sidelined, it simply specifies its field where it stops the scope of new methods.
Of course, these are not competing methods but complementary, which can also be combined in a patient's treatment strategy. In the hands of an experienced vascular surgeon who has in his… repertoire all methods, appropriate treatment can be adapted to the patient's needs.
