A Comparative Study of a Small Series of Patients (50 Patients) with Pelvic Varicose Veins Treated with Plugs Alone or Plugs and Polidocanol

Abstract

Level of Evidence: Level 2. Purpose: To compare the safety and efficacy of vascular plug (VP) and vascular plug and polidocanol foam (VPPF) treatments for embolization in pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS). Materials and methods: A comparative, prospective, two-center study enrolled 50 women with PCS from January 2019 to January 2020. The patients were divided into two groups, and embolization was performed with VP (n = 25) and VPPF (n = 25) treatments. The mean age of the patients was 45.6 years ± 6.9. Three clinical parameters were assessed: abdominal pain, dyspareunia, and lower limb pain. The primary outcome (clinical success at 1 yr using a VAS), number of devices, procedure and fluoroscopy times, radiation doses, costs, and complications were compared. The participants were followed-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: At the 1-year follow-up, clinical success did not significantly differ between the two groups (VP vs. VPPF) regarding the improvement of the symptoms analyzed (pelvic pain, dyspareunia, lower extremity pain, and other symptoms (p < 0.05)). The mean number of devices per case was 4 ± 1.1 for the VP group and 2 ± 0.31 for the VPPF group (p < 0.001). No major complications were recorded in either group. The VPPF group had a significantly longer fluoroscopy time (42.8 min ± 14.2 vs. 25.4 min ± 7) and longer radiation dose (VPPF air kerma 839.4 ± 513 vs. VP air kerma 658.4 mGy ± 355 (all p < 0.001)). Conclusions: Embolization for PCS resulted in pain relief in 90% of patients; the use of polidocanol did not demonstrate changes in the clinical outcome. The use of a VP alone was associated with decreased fluoroscopy time and radiation dose.