Latin anatomical terminology of venous perforators (communications between superficial and deep venous systems of the lower limb) was adopted as late as 2001 as an appendix to the official nomenclature following the clinicians’ request. Terminologia Anatomica, last version of the Latin anatomical nomenclature, published in 1998, unfortunately contains no terms concerning these veins. During the 14th World Congress of the International Union of Phlebology, a consensus document was laid to expand the nomenclature of the lower limb veins, above all 36 new terms for perforators of the lower limb, both in Latin and English languages. This consensus document will be incorporated in the next version of the Terminologia Anatomica. But there are more constant and well-described ones, especially in the foot, and this article reviews in particular the current knowledge on the anatomy of the venous perforators of the whole lower limb.

SummaryIntroduction: During the last years, many endovascular techniques have been developed in order to eliminate not only the reflux in stem veins but in perforating veins and their tributaries, too.Aim: The aim of this study was to use endo -vascular RFITT and the foam sclerotherapy for the occlusion of perforating veins as the prime source of reflux and their tributaries.Material and Methods: The Celon method was used for the thermal treatment. Polydocalon with the concentration 1% and 2% with DSS technique was used for the foam sclerotherapy. The RFITT was accomplished in 127 perforating veins in total. This group was divided into three subgroups. The first one consists of patients where only RFITT was carried out (n= 41), in the second, there were patients with RFITT realized with sclerotherapy during one session (n= 48), in the third, RFITT was completed with sclerotherapy in one month after the RFITT intervention (n= 38). The control group included perforating veins treated only with sclerotherapy (n= 81). The power setting 6W was used on the generator during the RFITT with CelonProSurge micro and 18W for usage of Celon ProCurve probe.Results: The effectiveness of the procedure in the group 1 was 8.8%, in the group two 93.7%, in the group three 92.1% and in the control group 76.5% in one year follow up. There was no significant difference between the effectiveness in groups 1, 2 and 3. The marginal difference was among all three groups with RFITT and the control group. Significant differences were in the parameter of the extinction of visible varicose veins with the reflux from perforators. The extinction was faster in group 3 than in group 2 and in the control group and the slowest was in group 1. The significant difference was observed between groups 2 and 3 compared with group 1 and the margin difference was between groups 2 and 3 compared with the control group. No significant difference was observed between groups 1 and the control group.Conclusions: All procedures are effective. The most important is the combination of RFITT and the sclerotherapy one month after thermal intervention. This is associated with a low risk of recanalization and the fastest extinction of visible varicose veins.