Skip to main content
Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders logoLink to Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders
. 2026 Mar 24;14(4):102494. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2026.102494

Quality-of-life outcomes after varicose vein surgery: A 12-month prospective study of 605 patients identifying key prognostic factors

Xue Xiong a, Lijuan Liu a, Yaoyao Gong a, Dongzhe Cui a, Zhiheng Huang a, Kristine JS Kwan b, Hai-Lei Li c,
PMCID: PMC13098581  PMID: 41887571

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes after varicose vein (VV) surgery and identify predictors of postoperative QoL to inform patient counselling and clinical management.

Methods

This prospective single-center study enrolled a cohort of consecutive patients who underwent surgical treatment for primary lower extremity VVs between September 2021 and December 2024. QoL was assessed using the Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire-20 at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Clinical severity was evaluated using the Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical, and Pathophysiological (CEAP) classification and Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and psychological status was assessed with the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale. Multivariate linear regression identified independent predictors of QoL at each time point.

Results

The cohort comprised 605 patients (370 females, 61.2%) with a mean age of 55.6 ± 12.6 years. CEAP classifications included C2 (10.1%), C3 (19.0%), C4 (66.9%), C5 (2.3%), and C6 (1.7%). Mean Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire-20 scores improved significantly from 81.15 ± 8.62 at 1 month to 89.11 ± 8.54 at 6 months (P < .001) and 95.59 ± 6.07 at 12 months (P < .001). Multivariate analysis revealed that advanced age, higher CEAP classification, greater VCSS, and elevated anxiety scores were consistent independent predictors of poorer QoL across all time points. At 12 months, age ≥60 years (P = .007), C5 or C6 classification (P < .001 and P = .01), higher VCSS (P < .001), and higher Self-Rating Anxiety Scale scores (P = .001) significantly predicted reduced QoL. Patients with C2 or C3 disease demonstrated superior QoL compared with those with C4 to C6 disease (P < .001). Additional factors influencing early postoperative QoL included gender, surgical technique, patient's occupation, and complications.

Conclusions

VV surgery yields sustained and progressive QoL improvements through 12 months postoperatively. Advanced age, greater disease severity, higher VCSS scores, and elevated anxiety independently predict poorer QoL outcomes. These findings support risk-stratified preoperative counseling, targeted postoperative follow-up, and integration of psychological assessment into comprehensive VV care.

Keywords: Varicose veins, Quality of life, Postoperative outcomes, Chronic venous insufficiency, Patient-reported outcomes


Article Highlights.

  • Type of Research: Prospective cohort study evaluating quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes after varicose vein (VV) surgery

  • Key Findings: VV surgery resulted in sustained quality-of-life improvements through 12 months postoperatively, with mean Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire-20 scores increasing significantly from 81.15 ± 8.62 at 1 month to 95.59 ± 6.07 at 12 months (P < .001). Advanced age (≥60 years), higher Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical, and Pathophysiological classification (C5-C6), greater Venous Clinical Severity Scores, and elevated anxiety levels independently predicted poorer postoperative QoL outcomes across all time points. Patients with early stage disease (C2-C3) demonstrated significantly superior QoL at 12 months compared with those with advanced disease (C4-C6), highlighting the value of early intervention.

  • Take Home Message: Surgical treatment of VVs provides progressive and sustained improvements in patient QoL. However, outcomes vary significantly based on patient characteristics and disease severity. Clinicians should provide risk-stratified preoperative counselling for older patients and those with advanced venous disease, implement targeted postoperative follow-up protocols, and integrate psychological assessment into routine care since anxiety is a significant independent predictor of poorer outcomes. These findings support a comprehensive, patient-centered approach to VV management that addresses both physical and psychological aspects of recovery.

Lower extremity varicose veins (VVs) represent a highly prevalent chronic venous disorder affecting 10% to 30% of the global population,1 with notable disparities by sex (46.7% in women vs 27.8% in men).2 In China alone, approximately 8.9% of the population, >100 million individuals, suffer from this condition.3 Beyond the visible manifestations of dilated superficial veins, patients experience a spectrum of symptoms including pain, heaviness, swelling, and skin changes that substantially impair physical function and daily activities.4 As the global population ages, the prevalence and severity of VVs continue to escalate, imposing significant economic burdens on healthcare systems and diminishing quality of life (QoL) for affected individuals.5,6

Surgical intervention remains the most effective treatment modality for symptomatic VVs.7 The therapeutic landscape has evolved substantially over the past two decades,8 with minimally invasive endovenous techniques such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and laser increasingly being used and recommended as first-line treatment in international guidelines.9, 10, 11 Although considerable research has compared the technical efficacy and complication rates of various surgical approaches, patient-centered outcomes, particularly QoL, have received less systematic attention.12,13 Understanding how QoL evolves postoperatively and which factors predict recovery is essential for patient counselling, shared decision-making, and optimizing therapeutic outcomes in contemporary patient-centered care models.14

Despite the recognized importance of QoL as a key outcome measure, comprehensive longitudinal data examining QoL trajectories and their determinants after VV surgery remain limited.15,16 Most existing studies have focused on comparing surgical techniques rather than systematically identifying modifiable and nonmodifiable factors that influence patient-reported outcomes.17 Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence regarding how QoL evolves over the first postoperative year and which patient subgroups may experience suboptimal recovery. Therefore, this prospective study aimed to evaluate QoL after surgical treatment for lower extremity VVs and to identify independent factors associated with postoperative QoL outcomes.

Methods

Study design

This prospective, single-center cohort study was conducted at the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, between September 2021 and December 2024. Patients who underwent surgical treatment for primary lower extremity VVs were enrolled and followed longitudinally at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The study protocol was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital (Ref: [2022]225). All participants provided written informed consent after receiving detailed information about the study objectives, procedures, and follow-up requirements. The study was conducted in accordance with the STROBE guidelines.18

Eligibility criteria

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged ≥18 years, had a confirmed diagnosis of primary lower extremity VVs according to established diagnostic criteria, underwent surgical treatment for VVs, and had a Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical, and Pathophysiological (CEAP) clinical classification of C2 to C6.19 Additional inclusion criteria required that participants have clear consciousness, normal communication and comprehension abilities to participate in telephone follow-up interviews, and willingness to participate in the study with signed informed consent. Patients were excluded if they had cognitive or mental disorders that would impair their ability to complete questionnaires; severe primary diseases of the heart, liver, or kidneys; active serious infections; or malignancy.

Data collection

Baseline demographic and clinical data were systematically collected from all participants before surgery. Demographic variables included age, sex, marital status, educational level, place of residence, occupation type, and medical payment method. Clinical characteristics documented included CEAP classification, disease duration, family history of VVs, presence of comorbidities, surgical technique performed, history of previous VV surgery, and occurrence of postoperative complications. Follow-up assessments were conducted via structured telephone interviews by trained research team members at 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery. All completed questionnaires were independently reviewed by a second researcher for accuracy and completeness before data entry into Excel 2010 for subsequent analysis.

Assessment instruments

QoL was assessed using the Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire (CIVIQ-20),20 a disease-specific instrument developed by Launois et al specifically for patients with chronic venous disease. The CIVIQ-20 comprises 20 items across 4 domains: physical, psychological, social, and pain, with a total possible score of 100 points. Higher scores indicate better QoL.

Venous disease severity was evaluated using the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS),21 a validated instrument proposed by Vasquez et al as a refinement of the CEAP classification system. The VCSS assesses 10 clinical parameters: pain, edema, venous claudication, pigmentation, lipodermatosclerosis, ulcer size, ulcer duration, ulcer recurrence, number of ulcers, and use of compression therapy. Each parameter is scored from 0 (absent) to 3 (severe), yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 30 points, with higher scores reflecting greater disease severity.

Psychological status was measured using the Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS),22 a widely used 20-item instrument developed by Zung in 1971 to assess anxiety symptoms. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale based on symptom frequency: 1 (none or very rarely), 2 (some of the time), 3 (a considerable amount of time), and 4 (most or all of the time). Items 5, 9, 13, 17, and 19 are reverse scored. The raw total score is multiplied by 1.25 to obtain a standardized score ranging from 25 to 100. Scores >50 indicate the presence of anxiety, with 50 to 59 representing mild anxiety, 60 to 69 moderate anxiety, and ≥70 severe anxiety.

The CIVIQ-20 and SAS were administered at each of these three postoperative follow-up time points. No preoperative SAS baseline was collected.

Primary end point

The primary end point was QoL as measured by CIVIQ-20 total scores at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and compared using independent t tests for two groups or one-way analysis of variance for multiple groups. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. Correlations between assessment scale scores and QoL were evaluated using Pearson or Spearman correlation analysis depending on whether data met normality assumptions. Univariate analyses were performed to examine associations between patient characteristics and QoL scores at each time point. Variables demonstrating statistical significance in univariate analysis were subsequently entered into stepwise multiple linear regression models to identify independent predictors of QoL at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The entry and removal criteria for stepwise regression were set at an alpha of 0.05 and a beta of 0.10, respectively. Model fit was evaluated using R2 and adjusted R2 values, and overall model significance was assessed using F statistics. Further comparison of QoL outcomes between patients with early stage disease (CEAP C2-C3) and advanced stage disease (CEAP C4-C6) at 12 months was performed. All statistical tests were two-tailed, and a P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 26.0 statistical software (IBM Corporation).

Results

Patient characteristics

Between September 2021 and December 2024, a total of 659 patients were enrolled, with 605 completing the 12-month follow-up (91.8% response rate). The cohort included 235 males (38.8%) and 370 females (61.2%), with a mean age of 55.6 ± 12.6 years. Most patients (66.9%) presented with C4 disease, while C2, C3, C5, and C6 represented 10.1%, 19.0%, 2.3%, and 1.7%, respectively. RFA was performed in 54.0% of cases, traditional high ligation and stripping in 14.7%, and a combination of two procedures for bilateral legs in 31.2%. Detailed baseline characteristics are shown in Table I.

Table I.

Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics of study participants (n = 605)

Variable No. Percent
Gender
 Male 235 38.8
 Female 370 61.2
Age, years
 18-44 140 23.1
 45-59 204 33.7
 ≥60 261 43.2
BMI, kg/m2
 <18.5 15 2.4
 18.5-23.9 249 41.2
 24-27.9 263 43.5
 ≥28 78 12.9
Smoking
 Yes 74 12.2
 No 531 87.8
Alcohol consumption
 Yes 123 20.3
 No 482 79.7
Marital status
 Married 517 85.5
 Single/divorced/widowed 88 14.5
Education level
 Primary school or below 121 20.0
 Secondary school 284 46.9
 College or above 200 33.1
Occupation type
 Office worker/civil servant 122 20.2
 Farmer/worker 146 24.1
 Professional/technical 77 12.7
 Others 260 43.0
Long-term residence
 Urban 539 89.1
 Rural 66 10.9
Living status
 Living alone 42 6.9
 Living with others 563 93.1
Medical payment type
 Medical insurance 539 89.1
 Commercial insurance 6 1.0
 Self-paid 60 9.9
Household per capita income, ¥/month
 <3000 78 12.9
 3000-4999 116 19.2
 5000-9999 199 32.9
 ≥10,000 211 35.0
Family history
 Yes 159 26.3
 No 446 73.7
Comorbidity
 Yes 188 31.1
 No 417 68.9
Disease duration, years
 <5 151 25.0
 5-9 54 8.9
 ≥10 400 66.1
CEAP classification
 C2 61 10.1
 C3 115 19.0
 C4 405 66.9
 C5 14 2.3
 C6 10 1.7
Surgical procedure
 RFA 327 54.0
 HLS 89 14.7
No. of operations
 1 566 93.6
 ≥2 39 6.4
Postoperative complications
 Yes 83 13.7
 No 522 86.3

BMI, Body mass index; CEAP, Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological; HLS, high ligation and stripping; RFA, radiofrequency ablation.

QoL trajectories over time

Mean CIVIQ-20 scores improved progressively from 81.15 ± 8.62 at 1 month to 89.11 ± 8.54 at 6 months (P < .001) and 95.59 ± 6.07 at 12 months postoperatively (P < .001).

Factors associated with QoL

Univariate analysis identified multiple demographic and clinical variables associated with QoL at different time points (Table II). At 1 month, significant associations included gender, age, education, occupation, income, comorbidity, disease duration, CEAP classification, surgical procedure, and postoperative complications (all P ≤ .041). By 6 months, associations with disease duration, surgical procedure, and complications were not statistically significant. At 12 months, gender, age, education, occupation, family history, comorbidity, and CEAP classification remained significant predictors.

Table II.

Univariate analysis of quality of life (QoL) at 1, 6, and 12 months of follow-up

Variable QoL score
1 Month 6 Months 12 Months
Gender
 Male 79.81 ± 9.75a 88.08 ± 9.60b 94.91 ± 7.06b
 Female 82.00 ± 7.72 89.76 ± 7.74 96.03 ± 5.31
Age, years
 18-44 84.24 ± 7.94c 91.73 ± 7.89c 97.14 ± 5.32c
 45-59 81.82 ± 8.03 89.88 ± 7.91 96.14 ± 5.38
 ≥60 78.96 ± 8.85 87.10 ± 8.90 94.34 ± 6.69
Education level
 Primary 79.87 ± 8.60a 87.80 ± 8.34c 94.92 ± 6.19a
 Secondary 80.73 ± 8.72 88.32 ± 8.67 95.06 ± 6.38
 Tertiary 82.82 ± 8.24 91.03 ± 8.19 96.76 ± 5.36
Occupation type
 Office worker/civil servant 82.02 ± 7.49b 90.88 ± 7.74c 96.80 ± 4.76b
 Farmer/worker 79.21 ± 8.70 86.73 ± 8.69 94.48 ± 6.40
 Professional/technical 82.46 ± 9.21 90.26 ± 8.79 95.75 ± 6.35
 Others 81.44 ± 8.76 89.28 ± 8.50 95.61 ± 6.26
Household per capita income, ¥/month
 <3000 79.87 ± 8.60a 87.87 ± 8.62b 94.73 ± 6.68
 3000-4999 78.71 ± 8.91 87.50 ± 8.83 94.58 ± 6.22
 5000-9999 82.30 ± 7.75 89.60 ± 7.99 95.88 ± 6.12
 ≥10,000 81.87 ± 8.98 89.98 ± 8.75 96.20 ± 6.12
Family history
 Yes 81.93 ± 7.55 90.01 ± 7.26 86.35 ± 5.06b
 No 80.87 ± 8.97 88.79 ± 8.94 95.33 ± 6.38
Comorbidity
 Yes 79.44 ± 9.27a 87.38 ± 9.05 94.71 ± 6.48b
 No 81.92 ± 8.21 89.89 ± 8.20 95.99 ± 5.84
Disease duration, years
 <5 82.62 ± 7.39b 90.01 ± 7.82 96.33 ± 5.72
 5-9 81.46 ± 8.84 89.72 ± 8.64 96.63 ± 5.31
 ≥10 80.55 ± 8.97 88.68 ± 8.78 95.17 ± 6.26
CEAP classification
 C2 84.68 ± 7.15c 91.39 ± 7.78c 97.31 ± 4.18c
 C3 83.89 ± 6.53 91.81 ± 6.74 97.34 ± 4.22
 C4 80.95 ± 7.86 89.09 ± 7.76 95.72 ± 5.49
 C5 65.14 ± 9.63 72.79 ± 8.23 83.07 ± 7.48
 C6 58.50 ± 7.23 67.60 ± 7.70 77.60 ± 5.71
Surgical procedure
 RFA 82.04 ± 8.55a 89.48 ± 8.51 95.61 ± 6.19
 HLS 78.42 ± 8.89 87.75 ± 8.89 95.28 ± 6.28
Postoperative complications
 Yes 77.90 ± 6.93c 89.81 ± 7.95 95.49 ± 5.82
 No 81.67 ± 8.76 89.00 ± 8.64 95.61 ± 6.12

CEAP, Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological; HLS, high ligation and stripping; RFA, radiofrequency ablation.

Data are mean ± standard deviation.

a

P < .01.

b

P < .05.

c

P < .001.

Multivariate regression analysis identified independent predictors at each time point (Table III). At 1 month, nine factors were independently associated with QoL, explaining 51.0% of the variance (R2 = 0.518). These included VCSS score (β = −1.13), SAS score (β = −0.10), female gender (β = 1.30), older age, C4 and C5 classification, RFA procedure (β = 1.49), and presence of complications (β = −3.88) (all P ≤ .011). At 6 months, five independent predictors remained, accounting for 42.0% of variance (R2 = 0.437). By 12 months, four consistent predictors emerged: age ≥60 years (β = −1.62, P = .007), C5 classification (β = −6.72, P < .001), C6 classification (β = −5.10, P = .01), VCSS score (β = −1.19, P < .001), and SAS score (β = −0.12, P = .001), explaining 45.3% of variance (R2 = 0.467).

Table III.

Multivariate analysis of independent predictors of quality of life (QoL) at 1, 6, and 12 months of follow-up

Independent variable B SE β t P value
1 Month (R2 = 0.518, adjusted R2 = 0.51), F = 63.886, P < .001
 Constant 93.34 1.24 75.61 <.001
 VCSS score −1.13 0.08 −0.525 −13.50 <.001
 SAS score −0.10 0.03 −0.137 −3.13 .002
 Female (vs. male) 1.30 0.51 0.073 2.55 .011
 Age 45-59 (vs. 18-44) −1.52 0.68 −0.083 −2.26 .014
 Age ≥60 (vs. 18-44) −3.10 0.66 −0.178 −4.72 <.001
 C4 (vs. C2) 2.66 0.61 0.145 4.35 <.001
 C5 (vs. C2) −5.93 1.89 −0.103 −3.14 .002
 RFAA (vs. HLS) 1.49 0.50 0.086 2.98 .003
 Complications present −3.88 0.72 0.155 −5.39 <.001
6 Months (R2 = 0.437, adjusted R2 = 0.42), F = 25.319, P < .001
 Constant 99.72 2.08 47.87 <.001
 VCSS score −1.02 0.10 −0.414 −9.82 <.001
 SAS score −0.14 0.05 −0.144 −3.16 .002
 Age ≥60 (vs. 18-44) −2.48 0.87 −0.144 −2.84 .005
 C5 (vs. C2) −7.32 2.21 −0.129 −3.32 .001
 Farmer/Worker (vs. Office) −2.14 0.91 −0.107 −2.35 .019
12 Months (R2 = 0.467, adjusted R2 = 0.453), F = 32.212, P < .001
 Constant 102.19 1.35 75.48 <.001
 VCSS score −1.19 0.10 −0.440 −11.98 <.001
 SAS score −0.12 0.04 −0.140 −3.31 .001
 Age ≥60 (vs. 18-44) −1.62 0.60 −0.132 −2.70 .007
 C5 (vs. C2) −6.72 1.55 −0.166 −4.33 <.001
 C6 (vs. C2) −5.10 1.96 −0.107 −2.60 .010

B, Unstandardized regression coefficient; β, standardized regression coefficient; HLS, high ligation and stripping; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; SAS, Self-Rating Anxiety Scale; SE, standard error; VCSS, Venous Clinical Severity Score.

Four factors consistently predicted QoL across all time points: age, CEAP classification, VCSS, and SAS scores, all showing negative associations with QoL outcomes.

QoL by disease severity

At 12 months, patients with early stage disease (C2-C3, n = 176) demonstrated significantly superior QoL compared with those with advanced-stage disease (C4-C6, n = 429): 97.33 ± 4.19 vs 94.88 ± 6.56 (t = 5.465, P < .001) (Table IV).

Table IV.

Comparison of quality of life (QoL) at 12 months by Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological (CEAP) classification (n = 605)

Group No. (%) QoL score T value P value
C2-C3 176 (29.1) 97.33 ± 4.19 5.465 <.001
C4-C6 429 (70.9) 94.88 ± 6.56

Data are mean ± standard deviation.

Discussion

This prospective study demonstrates sustained improvement in disease-specific QoL after surgical treatment of lower extremity VVs, with CIVIQ-20 scores increasing progressively from 81.15 at 1 month to 95.59 at 12 months postoperatively. This temporal pattern reflects early relief of venous symptoms followed by gradual restoration of physical function and social participation.

The findings of this study are consistent with previously published literature. The RELIEF validation study reported an 18-point Global Index improvement over six months with pharmacological treatment.23 MacKenzie et al24 reported significant and sustained disease-specific health-related QoL improvement up to 2 years after open VV surgery. Biemans et al25 demonstrated that CIVIQ scores improved in 76% of patients after VV treatment with a clinically meaningful medium effect size. Thao Cuong et al26 reported VCSS improvement from 5.9 ± 2.4 to 2.7 ± 1.6 at 1 month after endovascular laser ablation, consistent with the VCSS changes observed in our cohort. Direct numeric CIVIQ-20 comparison across studies is limited by differences in scoring conventions. Our study uses the 0 to 100 Global Index (higher = better), whereas some contemporary studies report the raw summed score.

The VCSS emerged as the strongest predictor of QoL across all time points, with each 1-point increase in VCSS associated with approximately 1.0- to 1.2-point decrease in the CIVIQ-20 score, consistent with the strong VCSS-CIVIQ-20 correlation (r = 0.63, P < .001) reported by Thao Cuong et al.26 This persistent association suggests that advanced venous disease creates tissue-level pathology, including chronic inflammation, microcirculatory dysfunction, and fibrosis, that is not fully reversible with hemodynamic correction alone.27 The independent effect of CEAP classification reinforces this finding, with C5 or C6 disease showing substantially reduced QoL at all time points, consistent with the approximately 16-point Global Index difference observed between adjacent CEAP severity groups in the RELIEF study.23 Patients with early-stage disease (C2-C3) achieved superior 12-month outcomes, supporting intervention before development of advanced skin changes, although our observational design precludes causal inference.

Advanced age (≥60 years) consistently predicted lower QoL throughout follow-up. Beyond diminished physiological reserve and comorbidity burden, functional factors may play a substantial independent role. Fukaya and Kolluri28 have outlined how calf muscle pump dysfunction, compounded by diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, arthritis, and foot deformities, sustains venous hypertension even after technically successful intervention. Obesity, present in 55% of our cohort, may increase intra-abdominal pressure and obstruct venous return, constituting an independent risk factor for disease progression.29 Sedentary behavior and limited ankle range of motion further impair calf pump activation, and addressing these factors through structured exercise is noted as underappreciated in the elderly.30 These observations are consistent with previous studies. Ahmadi et al31 identified physical performance and functional dependence as the strongest independent predictors of QoL in elderly patients. Brinson et al32 demonstrated that preoperative frailty predicts postoperative functional limitations and prehabilitation improves recovery in older surgical patients. This persistent effect supports age-stratified counseling and prospective evaluation of adjunctive prehabilitation programs in older patients undergoing VV surgery.

Several factors showed time-dependent effects. Surgical technique influenced QoL only at 1 month, with RFA conferring early advantages that disappeared by 6 months, consistent with literature showing procedural differences primarily affect perioperative recovery rather than long-term outcomes.33 Postoperative complications demonstrated the greatest effect at 1 month, but did not persist, indicating that complication-related deficits typically resolve while emphasizing the importance of prevention. Female gender showed protective effects only at 1 month, and farmer/worker occupation was associated with lower QoL at 6 months, possibly reflecting occupational demands during return to work.

Anxiety symptoms showed modest but consistent associations with QoL at all time points. Because the SAS was assessed concurrently with the CIVIQ-20 at each postoperative follow-up time point and no preoperative baseline was collected, the observed association is cross-sectional at each time point. The clinical impact is nonetheless meaningful: a patient with moderate anxiety (SAS 60) scored approximately 6 points lower on CIVIQ-20 than one without anxiety (SAS 40), independent of clinical severity. Whether the anxiety observed was preexisting, related to the surgical experience, or emerged during recovery cannot be established from these data. The consistent co-occurrence across all three time points, however, suggests a stable relationship between anxiety and reduced QoL throughout the postoperative period. Matei et al34 demonstrated significant Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 improvement alongside QoL recovery following open VV surgery, consistent with a relationship in which symptom burden and anxiety are mutually reinforcing.35,36 These findings support routine anxiety screening at postoperative follow-up to identify patients who may benefit from psychological support. Future studies should incorporate preoperative and repeated postoperative anxiety measures to disentangle causal mechanisms.

Our models explained 42% to 51% of QoL variance, indicating that unmeasured factors, including social support, health literacy, patient expectations, detailed comorbidity profiles, and physical activity patterns, contribute substantially to outcomes.37 This result highlights the complexity of recovery and the limitations of prediction based solely on demographic and clinical variables.

This study has several limitations. The single-center design may limit generalizability. Telephone follow-up captured patient experience efficiently, but did not allow imaging assessment or evaluation of recurrence. We assessed only anxiety, not depression or other psychological dimensions. The SAS was not assessed preoperatively. The causal direction of its association with QoL cannot be established. Limited representation of C5 and C6 disease (4% of the cohort) constrains precision for advanced disease subgroups. The CIVIQ-20 may not optimally capture ulcer burden in this subgroup, for which the Charing Cross Venous Ulcer Questionnaire (ie, the only patient-reported outcome measure to meet all three validation phases for C5-C6 disease) might be more appropriate.15 A formally validated minimal clinically important difference for the CIVIQ-20 has not been established in the VV literature. Biemans et al25 applied Norman's rule of thumb (ie, a change exceeding half a standard deviation) as a proxy for clinical meaningfulness. The approximately 16-point Global Index difference between adjacent CEAP severity groups in the RELIEF study provides the closest available benchmark in our scoring convention.23 Formal minimal clinically important difference derivation using anchor-based or distribution-based methods is recommended as a priority for future studies. Given the heterogeneity in treatment approaches, multicenter prospective registries would be particularly valuable for advancing evidence-based care.

Conclusions

Surgical treatment of lower extremity VVs produces sustained QoL improvement through 12 months, with outcomes shaped by clinical and psychological factors. VCSS is the dominant predictor across all time points, whereas surgical technique and complications affect only early recovery. These findings support risk-stratified patient counselling, with recognition that older patients and those with advanced disease may experience more modest improvement despite technically successful intervention. Future research should evaluate whether targeted interventions, such as enhanced postoperative support for high-risk subgroups or integration of psychological assessment into perioperative care can further optimize patient-centered outcomes.

Author Contributions

Conception and design: XX, HL

Analysis and interpretation: XX, LL, YG, KK, HL

Data collection: LL, YG, DC, ZH

Writing the article: XX, LL, YG, KK, HL

Critical revision of the article: XX, DC, ZH, KK, HL

Final approval of the article: XX, LL, YG, DC, ZH, KK, HL

Statistical analysis: XX, LL, YG, KK, HL

Obtained funding: XX

Overall responsibility: HL

Funding

This study was supported by the Guangdong Health Economics Association Project (2025-WJMZ-105).

Disclosures

None.

Footnotes

The editors and reviewers of this article have no relevant financial relationships to disclose per the Journal policy that requires reviewers to decline review of any manuscript for which they may have a conflict of interest.

References

  • 1.Elkholi S.M., Alotaibi D., Alrashdi R., et al. Prevalence of varicose veins among teaching professionals and their impact on quality of life and job performance: a cross-sectional study. Healthcare (Basel) 2025;13:3041. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13233041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Agarwal V., Agarwal S., Singh A., Nathwani P., Goyal P., Goel S. Prevalence and risk factors of varicose veins, skin trophic changes, and venous symptoms among northern Indian population. Int J Res Med Sci. 2016;4:1678–1682. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zhang M., Qiu T., Bu X., et al. A national survey on management of varicose veins in China. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2018;6:338–346.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2017.10.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chung J.H., Heo S. Varicose veins and the diagnosis of chronic venous disease in the lower extremities. J Chest Surg. 2024;57:109–119. doi: 10.5090/jcs.23.110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Aslam M.R., Muhammad Asif H., Ahmad K., et al. Global impact and contributing factors in varicose vein disease development. SAGE Open Med. 2022;10 doi: 10.1177/20503121221118992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Santiago F. Quality of life in chronic venous disease: bridging the gap between patients and physicians. Clin Drug Investig. 2023;43:3–8. doi: 10.1007/s40261-023-01264-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fayyaz F., Vaghani V., Ekhator C., et al. Advancements in varicose vein treatment: anatomy, pathophysiology, minimally invasive techniques, sclerotherapy, patient satisfaction, and future directions. Cureus. 2024;16 doi: 10.7759/cureus.51990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Javaid A., Ka A., Pm S., Arora K., Mudavath S.L. Innovative approaches and future directions in the management and understanding of varicose veins: a systematic review. ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci. 2024;7:2971–2986. doi: 10.1021/acsptsci.4c00430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gloviczki P., Lawrence P.F., Wasan S.M., et al. The 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society clinical practice guidelines for the management of varicose veins of the lower extremities. Part II: endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Medicine. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2024;12 doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2023.08.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Attaran R.R., Edwards M.L., Arena F.J., et al. 2025 SCAI clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic venous disease: this statement was endorsed by the Society for Vascular Medicine (SVM) J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2025;4 doi: 10.1016/j.jscai.2025.103729. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.De Maeseneer M.G., Kakkos S.K., Aherne T., et al. Editor’s choice—European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2022 clinical practice guidelines on the management of chronic venous disease of the lower limbs. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2022;63:184–267. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.12.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lim E.Q., Lim A.J.K., Twomey A. Clinical effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes of endovenous ablation and surgical stripping in varicose vein management: a systematic review. BMC Surg. 2025;26:41. doi: 10.1186/s12893-025-03269-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hummel T., Aryafar A., Mayböck N., Mumme A., Stücker M., Mühlberger D. Quality of life after varicose vein surgery in patients with high-ligation and stripping, external valvuloplasty and sapheno-femoral redo surgery. Ann Vasc Surg. 2021;74:331–338. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2020.12.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wang J., Xu Z., Chen F., Wei X., Shen B., Deng X. Advancing perioperative care: introducing patient-centered comfort management. Gland Surg. 2025;14:1390–1398. doi: 10.21037/gs-2025-79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cleman J., Xia K., Haider M., et al. A state-of-the-art review of quality-of-life assessment in venous disease. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2024;12 doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2023.101725. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Launois R. Health-related quality-of-life scales specific for chronic venous disorders of the lower limbs. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2015;3:219–227. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2014.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Geng C., Xie Y., Zhang L., et al. Comparison of radiofrequency ablation and high ligation stripping for varicose veins: a retrospective analysis. Ann Vasc Surg. 2025;120:392–399. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2025.07.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.von Elm E., Altman D.G., Egger M., et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:344–349. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lurie F., Passman M., Meisner M., et al. The 2020 update of the CEAP classification system and reporting standards. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2020;8:342–352. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2019.12.075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Launois R., Reboul-Marty J., Henry B. Construction and validation of a quality of life questionnaire in chronic lower limb venous insufficiency (CIVIQ) Qual Life Res. 1996;5:539–554. doi: 10.1007/BF00439228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Vasquez M.A., Rabe E., McLafferty R.B., et al. Revision of the venous clinical severity score: venous outcomes consensus statement: special communication of the American Venous Forum Ad Hoc Outcomes Working Group. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52:1387–1396. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.06.161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zung W.W. A rating instrument for anxiety disorders. Psychosomatics. 1971;12:371–379. doi: 10.1016/S0033-3182(71)71479-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Launois R., Mansilha A., Jantet G. International psychometric validation of the Chronic Venous Disease Quality of life Questionnaire (CIVIQ-20) Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40:783–789. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.03.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.MacKenzie R.K., Paisley A., Allan P.L., Lee A.J., Ruckley C.V., Bradbury A.W. The effect of long saphenous vein stripping on quality of life. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35:1197–1203. doi: 10.1067/mva.2002.121985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Biemans A.A.M., van der Velden S.K., Bruijninckx C.M.A., Buth J., Nijsten T. Validation of the chronic venous insufficiency quality of life questionnaire in Dutch patients treated for varicose veins. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;42:246–253. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Thao Cuong L., Tat Bang H., Le An T., Thi Thien Nga L., Thanh V.Y.T. Quality of life of patients with chronic venous insufficiency of the lower extremities before and after endovascular laser ablation: a prospective pilot study using the chronic venous insufficiency quality of life questionnaire 20 (CIVIQ-20) Cureus. 2023;15 doi: 10.7759/cureus.41854. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ortega M.A., Fraile-Martínez O., García-Montero C., et al. Understanding chronic venous disease: a critical overview of its pathophysiology and medical management. J Clin Med. 2021;10:3239. doi: 10.3390/jcm10153239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Fukaya E., Kolluri R. Nonsurgical management of chronic venous insufficiency. N Engl J Med. 2024;391:2350–2359. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp2310224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hotoleanu C. Association between obesity and venous thromboembolism. Med Pharm Rep. 2020;93:162–168. doi: 10.15386/mpr-1372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Silva K.L.S., Figueiredo E.A.B., Lopes C.P., et al. The impact of exercise training on calf pump function, muscle strength, ankle range of motion, and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic venous insufficiency at different stages of severity: a systematic review. J Vasc Bras. 2021;20 doi: 10.1590/1677-5449.200125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ahmadi M., Kazemi-Arpanahi H., Nopour R., Shanbehzadeh M. Factors influencing quality of life among the elderly: an approach using logistic regression. J Educ Health Promot. 2023;12:215. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_13_23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Brinson Z., Tang V.L., Finlayson E. Postoperative functional outcomes in older adults. Curr Surg Rep. 2016;4:21. doi: 10.1007/s40137-016-0140-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Li J., Xie E., Huang X., et al. Factors associated with postoperative care among patients with varicose veins of the lower extremities. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2026;14 doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2025.102354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Matei S.C., Dumitru C.Ș., Radu D. Measuring the quality of life in patients with chronic venous disease before and short term after surgical treatment-a comparison between different open surgical procedures. J Clin Med. 2022;11:7171. doi: 10.3390/jcm11237171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sritharan K., Lane T.R.A., Davies A.H. The burden of depression in patients with symptomatic varicose veins. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012;43:480–484. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2012.01.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cheng C.Y. Risk of new onset major depressive disorder among patients with varicose veins: a multi-institution database study. J Psychosom Res. 2022;161 doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2022.111003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Schick R., Staub-Buset C., Vujic G., Lachappelle S., Panfil E.M. "I was surprised that the veins were the cause" - the illness trajectory of people with venous leg ulcers: a qualitative study. J Tissue Viability. 2025;34 doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2024.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES