ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Ultrasound evaluation of the anatomy and hemodynamics of the Giacomini vein.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ultrasound characteristics of the Giacomini vein (GV) in Chinese populations remain poorly defined. The aim of this study was to analyze the anatomical and hemodynamic characteristics of the GV using color Doppler ultrasound and to provide evidence to support clinical diagnosis and treatment. Methods: Prospectively, 121 patients with lower extremity discomfort and varicose veins were continuously collected from July 2025 to January 2026, involving a total of 238 limbs. Patients were categorized into a primary group (C0) and a varicose group (C1-C4) according to the CEAP (Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical, and Pathophysiological) classification. All patients underwent ultrasound examination, and 38 cases underwent digital subtraction angiography (DSA). The GV was classified into four types. Agreement between ultrasound and DSA findings was assessed using Kappa statistics. Differences in GV detection rate, inner diameter, and reflux-related parameters were compared between groups, among GV types, and according to the severity of saphenous vein reflux. Results: Ultrasound and DSA demonstrated high concordance in GV classification (kappa =0.854). The overall GV detection rate was 73.95%, with a significantly higher rate in the right lower limb than in the left lower limb (P<0.05) and no significant difference between sexes. The great saphenous vein (GSV) confluence type was the most prevalent (73.3%). Detection rates of GV presence and reflux were significantly higher in the varicose group than in the primary group (P<0.05), whereas no significant difference in inner diameter was observed. Reflux detection rates showed an increasing trend across varicose subgroups; however, this trend did not reach statistical significance. The incidence of GV reflux was significantly higher in the small saphenous vein (SSV) reflux group and in the group with both GSV and SSV reflux than in the GSV reflux group (P<0.05). The severity of saphenous vein reflux had no significant effect on GV-related parameters. Conclusions: Ultrasound demonstrated significant clinical utility in the assessment of the GV. GV reflux was closely associated with the severity of lower extremity varicose veins and with the type of saphenous vein reflux. Prioritization of preoperative GV assessment may reduce postoperative recurrence rates and minimize intraoperative injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.