Back

Isolated great saphenous vein stripping for the treatment of varicose veins in lower limbs: a prospective study

Portela, F. S. O.; Louzada, A. C. S.; Portugal, M. F. C.; da Silva, M. F. A.; Pinheiro, L. L.; Antunes, B. F. F.; Fioranelli, A.; Wolosker, N.

2026-06-22 surgery
10.64898/2026.06.17.26355878 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Endovenous techniques are considered the gold standard for treating great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency, but access remains limited in low- and middle-income countries. In such contexts, simplified conventional surgeries may represent viable alternatives. This study aimed to compare outcomes of isolated GSV stripping with conventional surgery (stripping plus varicose vein resection) in patients with varicose veins (VV) associated with GSV insufficiency. Methods: A prospective interventional study was conducted including 34 patients with VV (CEAP C2-C6), divided into two groups: Conventional (C, n=17) and Isolated Saphenectomy (IS, n=17). Quality of life was assessed preoperatively and at 2 and 6 months postoperatively using the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) and VEINES-QoL/Sym questionnaires. Varicose vein evolution in the IS group was quantified using a standardized visual scoring system. Statistical analyses included Students t-test, chi-square, and generalized estimating equations (p[&le;]0.05). Results: Both groups were demographically comparable. Surgical treatment significantly improved VCSS and VEINES scores in both groups (p<0.005), with no intergroup difference at 6 months. In the IS group, the mean reduction in visible VV was 46% (range 20-90%). CEAP classification improved in both groups, with migration toward less severe categories postoperatively. No major complications were reported. Conclusion: Isolated GSV stripping yields comparable short- and mid-term improvements in symptoms and quality of life to conventional surgery, while reducing operative extent. In resource-limited settings, this abbreviated technique may expand access to treatment for VV, improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare costs without compromising clinical efficacy.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 2%
41.7%
2
Transfusion
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
3
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.8%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.4%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 30%
3.4%
6
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.4%
7
BMC Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
8
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.2%
9
Clinical Epidemiology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.2%
10
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.2%
11
Stem Cells Translational Medicine
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
12
Sleep
58 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.0%
13
Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
14
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
15
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
16
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
17
Value in Health
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
18
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
19
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%
20
JMIR Research Protocols
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
21
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
22
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.5%