Objective: To determine whether variations in the termination of the small saphenous vein predict small saphenous vein incompetence. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study, evaluating 133 patients diagnosed with either an isolated small saphenous vein incompetence (study group, n=47) or an isolated great saphenous vein incompetence (control group, n=86) between December 2014 and June 2015. The variations in the termination of the small saphenous vein were assessed using color Doppler ultrasound and classified according to the modified Kosinski’s classification. Data were compared between two groups. Results: Type 1 variation was more common (41/47, 87%) in patients with small saphenous vein incompetence compared to those with isolated great saphenous vein incompetence (54/86, 63%). No patients had Type 3 variation. Although not statistically significant, small saphenous vein incompetence was less common in patients with type 2 variation in the termination of small saphenous vein (16% vs. 43%; p=0.055). Conclusion While awareness of small saphenous vein termination variations cannot predict saphenous vein incompetence, since we encounter these variations frequently, it is important to determine the type of variation before surgical treatment in order to prevent recurrence.

Objective: To determine whether variations in the termination of the small saphenous vein predict small saphenous vein incompetence. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study, evaluating 133 patients diagnosed with either an isolated small saphenous vein incompetence (study group, n=47) or an isolated great saphenous vein incompetence (control group, n=86) between December 2014 and June 2015. The variations in the termination of the small saphenous vein were assessed using color Doppler ultrasound and classified according to the modified Kosinski’s classification. Data were compared between two groups. Results: Type 1 variation was more common (41/47, 87%) in patients with small saphenous vein incompetence compared to those with isolated great saphenous vein incompetence (54/86, 63%). No patients had Type 3 variation. Although not statistically significant, small saphenous vein incompetence was less common in patients with type 2 variation in the termination of small saphenous vein (16% vs. 43%; p=0.055). Conclusion While awareness of small saphenous vein termination variations cannot predict saphenous vein incompetence, since we encounter these variations frequently, it is important to determine the type of variation before surgical treatment in order to prevent recurrence.

Objective: To determine whether variations in the termination of the small saphenous vein predict small saphenous vein incompetence. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study, evaluating 133 patients diagnosed with either an isolated small saphenous vein incompetence (study group, n=47) or an isolated great saphenous vein incompetence (control group, n=86) between December 2014 and June 2015. The variations in the termination of the small saphenous vein were assessed using color Doppler ultrasound and classified according to the modified Kosinski’s classification. Data were compared between two groups. Results: Type 1 variation was more common (41/47, 87%) in patients with small saphenous vein incompetence compared to those with isolated great saphenous vein incompetence (54/86, 63%). No patients had Type 3 variation. Although not statistically significant, small saphenous vein incompetence was less common in patients with type 2 variation in the termination of small saphenous vein (16% vs. 43%; p=0.055). Conclusion While awareness of small saphenous vein termination variations cannot predict saphenous vein incompetence, since we encounter these variations frequently, it is important to determine the type of variation before surgical treatment in order to prevent recurrence.

Objective: To determine whether variations in the termination of the small saphenous vein predict small saphenous vein incompetence. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study, evaluating 133 patients diagnosed with either an isolated small saphenous vein incompetence (study group, n=47) or an isolated great saphenous vein incompetence (control group, n=86) between December 2014 and June 2015. The variations in the termination of the small saphenous vein were assessed using color Doppler ultrasound and classified according to the modified Kosinski’s classification. Data were compared between two groups. Results: Type 1 variation was more common (41/47, 87%) in patients with small saphenous vein incompetence compared to those with isolated great saphenous vein incompetence (54/86, 63%). No patients had Type 3 variation. Although not statistically significant, small saphenous vein incompetence was less common in patients with type 2 variation in the termination of small saphenous vein (16% vs. 43%; p=0.055). Conclusion While awareness of small saphenous vein termination variations cannot predict saphenous vein incompetence, since we encounter these variations frequently, it is important to determine the type of variation before surgical treatment in order to prevent recurrence.