English Polski
Vol 22, No 4 (2016)
Research paper
Published online: 2017-03-14

open access

Page views 2543
Article views/downloads 2750
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Application of endovenous mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) with Flebogrif™ to treat varicose veins of the lower extremities: a single center experience over 3 months of observation

Tomasz Zubilewicz, Piotr Terlecki, Karol Terlecki, Stanislaw Przywara, Janusz Rybak, Marek Ilzecki
Acta Angiologica 2016;22(4):137-142.


Introduction. Chronic venous insufficiency is one of the most common medical conditions among highly developed societies. The majority of patients (70%) suffer from saphenous veins incompetency. The study presents results of a 3-month follow-up of application of venous mechanochemical ablation system with the FlebogrifTM catheter.

Material and methods. The study was conducted on 200 patients, including 170 women and 30 men treated with ablation with FlebogrifTM to treat varicose veins. All patients were qualified based on the ultrasound in a standing position confirming incompetence of the great saphenous vein or small saphenous vein. The vein was punctured under ultrasound guidance in the distal part of the incompetent segment. The area of vascular access was anesthetized with 0.5 mL of 1% lignocaine. The compression therapy in the form of the first grade medical elastic stocking was used after the surgery.

Results. The initial technical success of the surgery was achieved in all the patients. During the 3-month follow-up, recanalization occurred in 8 cases, in 5 patients great saphenous vein and in 3 small saphenous vein recanalised. Based on the recommendations of the European Consensus Meeting on Foam Sclerotherapy,  7 cases were defined as complete recanalization and 1 as partial. The analysis of numerical data obtained with Venous Clinical Severity Score and Clinics Ethiology Anatomy Pathophysiology Classification showed a statistically significant decrease in the severity of clinical symptoms compared to ones before the surgery and between particular days of the observation during the 3-month follow-up.

Conclusions. The procedure is highly effective reaching 96% at 3 months of follow-up, provides good cosmetic effect and the low rate of complications. Minimal invasiveness of mechanochemical ablation with Flebogrif™ may improve the quality of life during the postoperative period. A long-term observation is recommended to achieve a full-value assessment of this novel method.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Vasić DM, Davidović LB, Maksimović ZV, et al. [Primary varicose veins: frequency, clinical significance and surgical treatment]. Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2004; 132(11-12): 398–403.
  2. García-Madrid C, Pastor Manrique JO, Gómez-Blasco F, et al. Update on endovenous radio-frequency closure ablation of varicose veins. Ann Vasc Surg. 2012; 26(2): 281–291.
  3. van Eekeren RR, Boersma D, Holewijn S, et al. Mechanochemical endovenous Ablation versus RADiOfrequeNcy Ablation in the treatment of primary great saphenous vein incompetence (MARADONA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014; 15: 121.
  4. van den Bos RR, de Maeseneer MMG. Endovenous thermal ablation for varicose veins: strengths and weaknesses. Phlebolymphology. 2012; 19: 163–169.
  5. Göckeritz O. Current standards and recent progress in minimally invasive phlebo surgery. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2012; 5(2): 104–114.
  6. Milleret R, Huot L, Nicolini P, et al. Great saphenous vein ablation with steam injection: results of a multicentre study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013; 45(4): 391–396.
  7. Shepherd AC, Gohel MS, Lim CS, et al. Pain following 980-nm endovenous laser ablation and segmental radiofrequency ablation for varicose veins: a prospective observational study. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2010; 44(3): 212–216.
  8. Proebstle TM, Vago B, Alm J, et al. Treatment of the incompetent great saphenous vein by endovenous radiofrequency powered segmental thermal ablation: first clinical experience. J Vasc Surg. 2008; 47(1): 151–156.
  9. Proebstle TM, Alm J, Göckeritz O, et al. European Closure Fast Clinical Study Group. Three-year European follow-up of endovenous radiofrequency-powered segmental thermal ablation of the great saphenous vein with or without treatment of calf varicosities. J Vasc Surg. 2011; 54(1): 146–152.
  10. Boon R, Akkersdijk GJM, Nio D. Percutaneus treatment of varicose veins with bipolar radiofrequency ablation. Eur J Radiol. 2010; 75(1): 43–47.
  11. Rasmussen LH, Lawaetz M, Bjoern L, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2011; 98(8): 1079–1087.
  12. van den Bos R, Arends L, Kockaert M, et al. Endovenous therapies of lower extremity varicosities: a meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg. 2009; 49(1): 230–239.
  13. Bishawi M, Bernstein R, Boter M, et al. Mechanochemical ablation in patients with chronic venous disease: a prospective multicenter report. Phlebology. 2014; 29(6): 397–400.
  14. Elias S, Raines JK. Mechanochemical tumescentless endovenous ablation: final results of the initial clinical trial. Phlebology. 2012; 27(2): 67–72.
  15. Witte ME, Reijnen MM, de Vries JP, et al. Mechanochemical Endovenous Occlusion of Varicose Veins Using the ClariVein® Device. Surg Technol Int. 2015; 26: 219–225.
  16. Lane T, Bootun R, Dharmarajah B, et al. A multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing radiofrequency and mechanical occlusion chemically assisted ablation of varicose veins - Final results of the Venefit versus Clarivein for varicose veins trial. Phlebology. 2017; 32(2): 89–98.
  17. Tang TY. Commentary: ClariVein. J Endovasc Ther. 2017; 24(1): 156–158.
  18. van Eekeren RR, Hillebrands JL, van der Sloot K, et al. Histological observations one year after mechanochemical endovenous ablation of the great saphenous vein. J Endovasc Ther. 2014; 21(3): 429–433.
  19. Tang TY, Kam JW, Gaunt ME. ClariVein® - Early results from a large single-centre series of mechanochemical endovenous ablation for varicose veins. Phlebology. 2017; 32(1): 6–12.
  20. Vun SV, Rashid ST, Blest NC, et al. Lower pain and faster treatment with mechanico-chemical endovenous ablation using ClariVein®. Phlebology. 2015; 30(10): 688–692.
  21. Bootun R, Lane TRA, Dharmarajah B, et al. Intra-procedural pain score in a randomised controlled trial comparing mechanochemical ablation to radiofrequency ablation: The Multicentre Venefit™ versus ClariVein® for varicose veins trial. Phlebology. 2016; 31(1): 61–65.
  22. Boersma D, van Eekeren RR, Kelder HJC, et al. Mechanochemical endovenous ablation versus radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of primary small saphenous vein insufficiency (MESSI trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014; 15: 421.
  23. Leung CCM, Carradice D, Wallace T, et al. Endovenous laser ablation versus mechanochemical ablation with ClariVein(®) in the management of superficial venous insufficiency (LAMA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2016; 17(1): 421.
  24. Ciostek P, Kowalski M, Woźniak W, et al. Phlebogriffe – a new device for mechanochemical ablation of incompetent saphenous veins: a pilot study. Phlebological Review. 2015; 3: 72–77.