With regard to the femoral varices, I would refer to the remarks below, and those on the treatment of varicose aneurism as indicating that a certain amount of caution should be exercised in interfering with them.
The same remarks in a lesser degree apply to the popliteal vessels. In the leg the tibials may readily and safely be attacked, but it may be mentioned that the widespread and diffused nature of the thrill may in some cases give rise to considerable difficulty in sharp localisation of the varix to either of the vessels, or to any particular spot in their course. In one case in my experience the posterior tibial was cut down upon, when the varix was probably peroneal in situation.
The operation most in favour consists in ligation of the artery above and below the varix, the vein remaining untouched. Even this operation, however, in two cases of femoral varix failed to effect more than a temporary cessation of the symptoms, although the ligatures were placed but a short distance from the communication. Failure is due to the presence of collateral branches, which are not easy of detection. Even when the vessels lie exposed, the even distribution of the thrill renders determination of the exact point of communication difficult, and the difficulty is augmented by the temporary arrest of the thrill following the application of a proximal ligature to the artery. A successful case is reported by Deputy Inspector-General H. T. Cox, R.N., in which the ligatures were placed 1/2 an inch from the point of communication.[16] Single ligation, or proximal ligature, is useless.
If the vein cannot be spared, excision of a limited part of both vessels may be preferable, particularly in those of the upper extremity.
Proximal ligation of the artery combined with double ligature of the vein, as adopted in case 15 by Colonel Lewtas for a varicose aneurism, might offer advantages in some situations.
Given suitable surroundings and certain diagnosis, the ideal treatment of this condition, as of the next, is preventive—i.e. primary ligation of the wounded artery. Many difficulties, however, lie in the way of this beyond mere unsatisfactory surroundings. It suffices to mention the two chief: uncertainty as to the vessel wounded, and the necessity of always ligaturing the vein as well as the artery in a limb often more or less dissected up by extravasated blood, to show that this will never be resorted to as routine treatment.
Arterio-venous aneurism.—Many of the remarks in the last section find equal application here, but in the presence of an aneurismal sac non-intervention is rarely possible or advisable. In the early stages the proper treatment in any case consists in placing the patient in as complete a condition of rest as possible, and affording local support to the limb by a splint, preferably a removable plaster-of-Paris case. Should no further extension, or, what is more likely, should contraction and diminution occur, it will be well to continue this treatment for some weeks at least.
When the aneurism has reached a quiescent stage the question of further treatment arises, and whether this should consist in local interference or proximal ligature. The answer to this mainly depends on the size and situation of the vessels concerned. To take of the cases above described the five instances in which the cervical vessels were the seat of the aneurism. In No. 13 the symptoms appeared fairly conclusive of the injury being to the innominate artery and vein, or possibly innominate artery and jugular vein. Fortunately the aneurismal sac in this case was small and showed a tendency to decrease, but in any case no interference would have been justifiable. I think a similar opinion was unavoidable in No. 14, probably affecting the root of the right carotid. Here under any circumstances interference would have been most hazardous. The position of large aneurism made the route of approach to the wounded spot necessarily through the sac, exposing the patient to the double danger of immediate hæmorrhage and of entrance of air into the great veins. Nos. 10, 11, and 12 fall into the same category, except that in No. 11 the immediate indication for interference was extension. In each, ligature of the artery above and below the point of communication would have necessitated so near an approach to the sac which must remain in communication with the vein as to have entailed injury to the latter, when both artery and vein must have been ligatured, probably risking serious cerebral trouble. In No. 11 I believe both the external and internal carotids were implicated; in No. 10 I believe the internal alone, close to its origin. The operation of proximal ligature ensured primary consolidation of the sac in both cases 10 and 11, but left the thrill unaltered, except in so far as it was temporarily weakened. It, in fact, converted these cases from arterio-venous aneurisms into pure aneurismal varices. In No. 10 a sac subsequently redeveloped. No. 12 stood on a different basis. No operation was done for him in South Africa, but the first portion of the carotid might have been ligatured in the episternal notch, or by aid of removal of a part of the sternum, and a second ligature placed above the sac. Here a ligature above and below the communication would have been comparatively easy.
As a general rule proximal ligature is to be reserved for those cases alone in which double ligature is either impracticable or inadvisable, and it can only be expected to convert a varicose aneurism into the less dangerous condition of aneurismal varix.
In the case of arterio-venous aneurisms in the limbs the possibilities of treatment are enlarged, and here the alternatives of (a) local interference with the sac and direct ligature of the wounded point, (b) simple ligature above and below the sac, (c) proximal ligature (Hunterian operation), come into consideration.