Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 10, 2026

Occlusion of the Great and Small Saphenous Vein Using Copolymeric Glue Based on N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate and Methacryloxy Sulfolane
Published on: December 9, 2022
Which modality for which vein? A narrative review of strategic modality selection for chronic venous disease
1Charm Vascular Clinic, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Insights
Choosing the right chronic venous disease (CVD) treatment depends on vein anatomy. This review offers a framework to select the best endovenous technique, balancing efficacy and patient factors for optimal outcomes.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Phlebology
- Medical Technology Assessment
Background:
- Chronic venous disease (CVD) management has evolved, moving from traditional high ligation and stripping (HL/S) to various endovenous techniques.
- No single endovenous modality is universally optimal for all CVD presentations, anatomical variations, or patient profiles.
Purpose of the Study:
- To review current evidence and guidelines for CVD treatment modalities.
- To propose an anatomy-oriented framework for selecting the most appropriate endovenous technique in clinical practice.
Main Methods:
- A narrative review of MEDLINE and key guidelines from major vascular surgery societies.
- Focus on comparative trials and long-term studies of HL/S, endovenous thermal ablation (TT), cyanoacrylate closure (CAC), mechanochemical ablation (MOCA), and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS).
- Descriptive synthesis of evidence regarding anatomical indications, efficacy, and complications.
Main Results:
- HL/S remains suitable for severely dilated, aneurysmal, or tortuous veins, and junctional disease.
- Thermal ablation (TT) offers high occlusion rates but has limitations in very superficial or large veins.
- Non-thermal methods (CAC, MOCA) provide comfort and avoid nerve injury, especially below the knee, but may have less durable outcomes in larger veins.
- Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) is versatile for complex cases but less ideal for primary truncal reflux.
Conclusions:
- An optimal "gold-standard" endovenous modality for all CVD cases does not exist.
- An individualized, anatomy-centered approach, potentially using hybrid techniques, is crucial for maximizing treatment success and minimizing complications in chronic venous disease management.
Abstract:
IntroductionManagement of chronic venous disease (CVD) has shifted from high ligation and stripping (HL/S) to multiple endovenous options, yet no single technique is optimal for all anatomical patterns or patient profiles. This narrative review aimed to summarize current evidence and guideline recommendations and outline an anatomy-oriented framework for modality selection in daily practice.MethodsA non-systematic search of MEDLINE and current guidelines from the European Society for Vascular Surgery and the Society for Vascular Surgery/American Venous Forum/American Vein and Lymphatic Society was performed, focusing on comparative trials, long-term series and key reviews of HL/S, endovenous thermal techniques (TT), cyanoacrylate closure (CAC), mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS). Evidence was synthesized descriptively with attention to anatomical indications, efficacy and complications.ResultsHL/S remains valuable for markedly dilated, aneurysmal or tortuous trunks, epifascial segments and junctional disease with thrombus or unfavorable anatomy, and may provide durable occlusion in very large veins. TT is the best-studied modality, achieving high occlusion rates, rapid recovery and broad applicability across typical truncal diameters, but efficacy and skin-related events are problematic in superficial or extremely large veins. CAC and MOCA, as non-thermal non-tumescent options, offer excellent periprocedural comfort and avoid thermal nerve injury, making them attractive for below-the-knee segments; however, durability appears less robust in large-diameter or long trunks and both incur higher device-related costs. CAC is uniquely associated with phlebitis-like abnormal reaction or hypersensitivity. UGFS remains a versatile option for complex recurrent varices and neovascularization but is less suitable as a first-line treatment for truncal reflux.ConclusionsNo single "gold-standard" modality suffices for all CVD presentations. An anatomy- and patient-centered strategy that deliberately deploys all available modalities or hybrid combinations based on vein diameter, depth, length and patient factors is essential to optimize occlusion and minimize complications in daily practice.
Related Concept Videos
Varicose Veins II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis IV: Nursing Management
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Varicose Veins I: Introduction
Overview of Systemic Veins
The coronary sinus, the heart's principal vein, resides in the coronary sulcus on the heart's posterior aspect. This broad venous channel receives nearly all venous blood from the myocardium, the heart muscle. It is fed by three primary veins: the great cardiac vein, the middle...
