The venous system has a low blood pressure compared with the arterial system. The pulsatile nature of the blood pressure in the arterial system is absent in the venous system. These functional disparities, in combination with differences in the composition of the vessel wall, account for the observations that the venous system has distinctly different visco-elastic properties compared with those of the arterial system 1 . The visco-elastic properties of the arterial tree have been the subject of many studies and a relationship between these properties and the early onset of atherosclerosis has been established 2-5 . Sparse information is available about the potential relationship between the visco-elastic properties of the venous system and venous diseases.Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) are the most common venous diseases of the lower leg. A significant number of DVT patients will develop complications of the venous system of the lower leg 6 -9 . The developmental process of venous complications is not completely understood. Longlasting elevated venous pressure resulting from venous valve insufficiency is considered the primary cause of lower leg venous abnormality 1 0 . A continuous elevated venous pressure will alter the microcirculation and eventually lead to tissue necrosis and ulceration 11,12 .A relation called the venous pressure volume relation (VPVR) relates the venous pressure in the leg to the venous volume of the leg. The VPVR carries information about visco-elastic properties of the venous system.
AbstractObjectives: To derive a three-parameter model for the curvilinear venous pressure volume relation of the lower leg, and to test its consistency. Methods: A model with venous pressure at rest (P 0 , mmHg), the venous compliance at P 0 (C 0 , %/mmHg) and the venous stiffness constant (k, 1/%) was derived. With strain gauge plethysmography the venous pressure volume relations of both legs at the mid-calf and at the ankle region were measured and fitted in 120 consecutive patients in the supine position. Results: No difference was observed between the mid-calf P 0 (right 8.1 ± 2.2, left 8.4 ± 2.1) nor between ankle P 0 (right 10.1 ± 2.3, left 10.0 ± 2.1). A significant pressure difference of -1.8 mmHg was found between mid-calf and ankle. Leg side differences were not observed for either C 0 at the ankle (right 0.36 ± 0.29, left 0.49 ± 0.85) or in the mid-calf region (right 0.54 ± 1.1, left 0.46 ± 1.0). Differences for the leg region but not for the leg side were found for k (mid-calf right 0.54 ± 0.38, left 0.64 ± 0.52, ankle right 1.32 ± 0.66 and left 1.33 ± 0.65). Conclusion: The model demonstrated provided a proper description of the curvilinear venous pressure volume relation.