OBJECTIVE: To discuss the differential diagnosis and the management of veno
us malformations of the vulva.
METHODS: Five symptomatic patients were treated. The degree of pain and dis
comfort was self-assessed by using a horizontal visual analog scale before
and after treatment. Preoperative evaluation included Doppler ultrasound sc
anning in all patients and magnetic resonance imaging (AW in one. All patie
nts had direct-injection venography and sclerotherapy during the same sessi
on. Ethanol was used in two cases and polidocanol in three. Patients were f
ollowed-up by means of Doppler ultrasound scanning and office visits.
RESULTS: All patients experienced marked swelling after the injection, and
one developed cutaneous necrosis that healed within 2 weeks. Transient hemo
globinuria was observed in two cases. No early or late major complications
occurred. At a mean follow-up of 23 months (range 5-43), all patients exper
ienced complete relief from symptoms and currently have normal vulvar sensa
tion. Four patients had complete ablation of die treated lesion. In one pat
ient the procedure resulted in a significant, albeit incomplete, occlusion
of the lesion, and no further treatment was deemed necessary. From a cosmet
ic standpoint, both patients and physicians considered the results successf
ul.
CONCLUSION: Vulvar venous malformations should be distinguished from vulvar
varicosities, hematomas, soft-tissue neoplasms, and other vascular anomali
es. Doppler ultrasound, MRI, and direct-injection venography are the most a
ccurate diagnostic modalities. Sclerotherapy can successfully treat this co
ndition. The procedure should be monitored with an imaging modality, prefer
ably direct-injection venography with digital subtraction serial imaging. (
Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:789-93. (C) 2001 by the American College of Obstetri
cians and Gynecologists).