Invited Commentary| Volume 34, ISSUE 5, P604, November 2007

Download started.


Commentary re: Recurrence Rates Following External Valvular Stenting of the Saphenofemoral Junction: A Comparison with Simultaneous Contralateral Stripping of the Great Saphenous Vein

Open ArchivePublished:August 23, 2007DOI:
      There was once a time in phlebologic history when the venocuff technique of varicose vein treatment with Saphenous vein preservation seemed important. At that time, the external wrap at the site of the terminal Saphenous valve was an ingenious approach that corrected venous insufficiency and maintained the integrity of the vein so that it could be used for coronary bypass.
      Time has passed both of those ideas by and has also dealt with the varicose recurrences caused by neovascularization.
      It is apparent that a groin incision leads to neovascularization and this, in turn is responsible for some recurrent varicose veins. If there is no groin incision there is no neovascularization. Coronary bypass no longer requires a strong Saphenous vein; or any vein for that matter. And now, there are several ways to correct Saphenous reflux that do not require the technical surgery of days past. So this presentation is of historic interest and stands as a tribute to its inventor. But time passes many good ideas by and this is one that remains only of historic interest.

      Linked Article


      Commenting Guidelines

      To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:

      • We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
      • This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
      • We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
      • Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
      • Comments are not peer-reviewed.