Mousse de polidocanol 3 versus 1% dans la sclérothérapie de la grande veine saphène. Étude randomisée en double insu avec suivi sur deux ans

Hamel-Desnos, C.; Ouvry, P.; Allaert, F. A.

doi:10.1016/j.jmv.2007.06.053

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clinical studies show that the efficacy of DSS foams at a ratio of 1+4 prepared with POL 1% or 3% is very similar (9,27). This can be explained with similar stability and rheology of both foams, as found in this study (foam half times, foam coalescence/ coarsening times and maximum displacement distances).…”

Section: Tabsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…They always have a greater efficacy than the corresponding liquid agent but the efficacy seems somehow lower and the volumes injected seem to be higher (35,36). Higher volumes of sclerosant foams are correlated with more side effects, thus the smallest effective volumes (not exceeding recommended doses (3,4,10,41) or volumes found safe in randomized, multi-centre (27,35) or nonrandomized, single-centre trials) (34) of foams of appropriate quality are justified.…”

Section: Tabmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In parallel to this, a video was presented by Lorenzo Tessari in 1999, and his method, known as Tourbillion technique or Tessari method probably is the method of "extemporary" foam preparation used displacing capacities especially in veins of large calibers (48,50) and tested in a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial (40). The material is bundled in a kit and contains a special syringe precharged with sterile gas in the necessary amount tightly sealed by a particular two-way restrictor valve-adapter and allows easier production of a standardized foam, either manually or with the help of a special automated pumping device (27,17).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sclerosant foams

Wollmann¹

2010

Phlebologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryNumerous ways of transferring detergent type liquid sclerosants into foam have been described. Out of all techniques, the three most commonly used around the world were selected. Sclerosant foams prepared with different agents and protocols were analyzed in detail, and their rheologic properties were assessed. Some of the results are presented in this review. Results: It is evident that the the material for foam production plays an important role for foam stability, and – connected to this – maybe also for efficacy and safety. Therefore, material that ensures acceptable foam quality should be used exclusively. Out of a huge number of possibilities, the material described in this study was found most suitable. This ensures minimal reduction of foam quality delivered into the vein. Foams considered instable are not clinically ineffective. They have a greater efficacy than the corresponding liquid agent. Foams considered stable seem to need lower injection volumes to have the same or better physical behaviour. Conclusion: Since higher volumes of sclerosant foams are correlated with more side effects, always the smallest effective volumes of foams of appropriate quality are justified.

show abstract

Section: Tabsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Tabmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sclerosant foams

Wollmann¹

2010

Phlebologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Foams were produced by mixing controlled volumes of the aqueous buffered polidocanol solution and a gas or gas mixture. A polidocanol concentration of 1 % (v/v in buffered saline) was chosen, as clinical studies in varicose vein treatment comparing efficacy of 1 and 3 % polidocanol found no statistically significant difference between the two concentrations [ 24 , 25 ], and this allowed for direct comparison of PCFs with PEM which is made from 1 % polidocanol. Gas formulations studied included RA, CO 2 and mixtures of carbon dioxide and oxygen (CO 2 :O 2 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of clinically-relevant parameters on the cohesiveness of sclerosing foams in a biomimetic vein model

Carugo

Ankrett

O’Byrne

et al. 2015

J Mater Sci: Mater Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have recently reported on the development of a biomimetic vein model to measure the performance of sclerosing foams. In this study we employed the model to compare the commercially-available Varithena® (polidocanol injectable foam) 1 % varicose vein treatment (referred to as polidocanol endovenous microfoam, or PEM) with physician compounded foams (PCFs) made using different foam generation methods (Double Syringe System and Tessari methods) and different foam formulations [liquid to gas ratios of 1:3 or 1:7; gas mixtures composed of 100 % CO2, various CO2:O2 mixtures and room air (RA)]. PCFs produced using the DSS method had longer dwell times (DTs) (range 0.54–2.21 s/cm in the 4 mm diameter vein model) than those of the corresponding PCFs produced by the Tessari technique (range 0.29–0.94 s/cm). PEM had the longest DT indicating the best cohesive stability of any of the foams produced (2.92 s/cm). Other biomimetic model variables investigated included effect of vessel size, delayed injection and rate of plug formation (injection speed). When comparing the 4 and 10 mm vessel diameters, the DTs seen in the 10 mm vessel were higher than those observed for the 4 mm vessel, as the vein angle had been reduced to 5° to allow for foam plug formation. PCF foam performance was in the order RA > CO2:O2 (35:65) ≅ CO2:O2 (65:35) > CO2; PEM had a longer DT than all PCFs (22.10 s/cm) except that for RA made by DSS which was similar but more variable. The effect of delayed injection was also investigated and the DT for PEM remained the longest of all foams with the lowest percentage deviation with respect to the mean values, indicating a consistent foam performance. When considering rate of plug formation, PEM consistently produced the longest DTs and this was possible even at low plug expansion rates (mean 29.5 mm/s, minimum 20.9 mm/s). The developed vein model has therefore demonstrated that PEM consistently displays higher foam stability and cohesiveness when compared to PCFs, over a range of clinically-relevant operational variables.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10856-015-5587-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Mousse de polidocanol 3 versus 1% dans la sclérothérapie de la grande veine saphène. Étude randomisée en double insu avec suivi sur deux ans

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Sclerosant foams

Sclerosant foams

The role of clinically-relevant parameters on the cohesiveness of sclerosing foams in a biomimetic vein model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About