THE VALUE OF LIGHT-REFLECTION RHEOGRAPHY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF SUPERFICIAL VENOUS INSUFFICIENCY - A STUDY IN PATIENTS WITH PRIMARY VARICOSE-VEINS AND IN WORKERS WITH A STANDING OCCUPATION
Em. Deboer et al., THE VALUE OF LIGHT-REFLECTION RHEOGRAPHY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF SUPERFICIAL VENOUS INSUFFICIENCY - A STUDY IN PATIENTS WITH PRIMARY VARICOSE-VEINS AND IN WORKERS WITH A STANDING OCCUPATION, Phlebology, 12(2), 1997, pp. 69-73
Objective: To study the value of light reflection rheography (LRR) as
a diagnostic tool in subjects with varicose veins and venous insuffici
ency. Design: A prospective study comparing patients and workers with
an occupation necessitating standing. Setting: Departments of Dermatol
ogy and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital VU, Amsterdam. The Nethe
rlands and several manufacturing plants throughout the country. Subjec
ts: Group I: 123 patients (168 legs) with a history of primary varicos
e veins attending the outpatient clinic; Group II: 374 male workers (7
48 legs) with an occupation necessitating standing. Methods: A questio
nnaire on venous disorders was administered, followed by clinical inve
stigation, continuous-wave (c/w) Doppler ultrasound and LRR examinatio
n. LRR measurements were performed above the medial malleolus. A refil
ling time of at least 25 s after 10 dorsiflexions at the ankle was con
sidered normal. In the case of shorter refilling times the procedure w
as repeated with a tourniquet above the probe. Normalization of the re
filling time indicates an incompetent superficial venous system and a
normal deep system. If there was no change we concluded. deep venous i
nsufficiency was present. Furthermore, in group I, duplex investigatio
n of the venous system was performed. Main outcome measures: The diagn
ostic conclusions of the LRR measurements were compared with the diagn
osis based on duplex investigation (group I) and clinical examination
combined with c/w Doppler investigation (group II). Results: Group I:
duplex investigation showed 156 cases of superficial venous insufficie
ncy; LRR, 33. Sensitivity of LRR: 20%. Group II: Clinical and c/w Dopp
ler examination showed 189 cases of superficial venous reflux; LRR, 29
. Sensitivity of LRR: 7%. Conclusion: LRR has no apparent additive val
ue in diagnosing superficial varicose veins in patients with a history
of primary varicosities nor in screening a population for the presenc
e of venous insufficiency.