Purpose Studies examining cyanoacrylate closure of saphenous veins with the VenaSeal™ System have not allowed concomitant procedures for tributaries at the time of the index procedure. Outside of clinical trials, however, concomitant procedures are frequently performed in conjunction with endovenous ablation. We report on the frequency of need for saphenous tributary treatment three months after cyanoacrylate closure of the treatment of great saphenous vein, small saphenous vein, and/or accessory saphenous vein. Methods Fifty subjects with symptomatic great saphenous vein, small saphenous vein, and/or accessory saphenous vein incompetence were treated with no postprocedure compression stockings. Concomitant procedures were not allowed. Treating physicians predicted the type and nature of any concomitant procedures that they would usually perform at the time of ablation, if not limited by the constraints of the study. Evaluations were performed at one week, one and three months and included duplex ultrasound, numeric pain rating scale, revised venous clinical severity score, the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire, and time to return to work and normal activities. At the three-month visit, the need for and type of adjunctive procedures were recorded. Results Complete closure at three months was achieved in 70 (99%) of the treated veins (48 great saphenous veins, 14 accessory saphenous veins, eight small saphenous veins). Revised venous clinical severity score improved from 6.4 ± 2.2 to 1.8 ± 1.5 (P < .001) and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire from 17.3 ± 7.9 to 6.5 ± 7.2 (P < .0001). Sixty-six percent of patients underwent tributary treatment at three months. The percentage of patients who required adjunctive treatments at three months was lower than had been predicted by the treating physicians (65% versus 96%, p=.0002). Conclusions Closure rates were high in the absence of the use of compression stockings or side branch treatment. Improvement in quality of life was significant, and the need for and extent of concomitant procedures was significantly less than had been predicted by the treating physicians.

Objective Hypersensitivity reaction presenting as a distinctive erythematous rash has been reported following VenaSeal™ cyanoacrylate adhesive closure. We report the frequency of hypersensitivity reactions, time to onset, duration, and severity of symptoms in patients treated with cyanoacrylate adhesive closure at a single institution. Patient and procedural factors associated with hypersensitivity reactions were evaluated. Methods A combined retrospective/prospective review of cyanoacrylate adhesive closure-treated patients was conducted over five years. Data collected from electronic medical records were reviewed for the presence of hypersensitivity reactions along with the time of onset, duration of symptoms, and severity of reaction. Severity was classified as mild if no treatment or over the counter medication was provided, moderate if steroids were required, and severe if the reaction lasted >30 days or required vein excision. Results Three hundred and seventy-nine limbs were treated in 286 patients (313 treatment days). Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 18 patients (5.8% treatments, 6.3% patients). Thirteen were mild (4.2%), four were moderate (1.3%), and one was severe (0.3%). No patient or procedural predictive factors for hypersensitivity reaction were identified other than a trend towards decreased hypersensitivity reactions in patients with Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomic, Pathophysiologic (CEAP) clinical class C4–C6 (p = .06). Second limb treatment on a subsequent day was performed in 27 patients, and no hypersensitivity reactions occurred. Symptom onset time ranged from 1 to 23 days, with a mean of 13 days (confidence interval (CI) ±3.5 days). Duration of symptoms ranged from 3 to 28 days (mean 10.8 CI ±4.9 days). Conclusions Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 6.0% of patients treated with cyanoacrylate adhesive closure, but most were mild and self-limited. Severe reactions were uncommon. No predictive patient or procedural factors were found to be associated with hypersensitivity reactions other than a trend towards decreased risk in patients with advanced CEAP clinical class. Previous cyanoacrylate adhesive closure treatment was not a predictive factor for hypersensitivity reaction in patients undergoing treatment at a later date.

The laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy can be simplified and performed safely and effectively by using a novel esophageal inversion technique.Design: Case series describing technique, initial experience, and learning curve with laparoscopic inversion esophagectomy.Setting: Tertiary care university hospital and veteran's hospital.Patients: Twenty consecutive patients with highgrade dysplasia (n = 16) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (n=4).Intervention: Laparoscopic inversion esophagectomy, a totally laparoscopic approach to transhiatal esophagectomy that incorporates distal to proximal inversion to improve mediastinal exposure and ease of dissection.Main Outcome Measures: Perioperative end points and complications, compared between the first and second groups of 10 patients.Results: There were 19 men and 1 woman. Median operative time was 448 minutes. Median blood loss was 175 cm 3 . Median intensive care unit stay was 4 days, and median total hospital stay was 9 days. Overall anastomotic leak rate was 20%. Five patients developed an anastomotic stricture, all successfully managed with endoscopic dilation. There were 2 recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries, which resolved. There was no intraoperative or 30-day mortality. Between the first 10 consecutive cases and last 10 procedures, the incidence of anastomotic leak and stricture formation decreased from 30% to 10% and 40% to 10%, respectively. During this period, the number of lymph nodes harvested increased 9-fold, and duration of intensive care unit stay decreased from 8.00 to 2.50 days.Conclusions: Laparoscopic inversion esophagectomy is a safe procedure. The learning curve for the inversion approach is approximately 10 operations in the hands of esophageal surgeons with advanced laparoscopic expertise.