Extra-pelvic varicose veins (VVs), originating from incompetent pelvic veins, present a significant clinical challenge, due to their complex anatomy, etiology, and symptomatology. This review aims at providing a comprehensive overview of the diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for these cases and emphasizes the importance of a tailored, evidence-based approach to the effective management of these varicosities, particularly regarding the interplay between the pelvic and extra-pelvic venous systems. Diagnostic workup should be multifaceted, incorporating patient-reported symptoms, physical examinations, and duplex ultrasound imaging. Specific diagnostic assessments include evaluation of the pelvic escape points and the transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasonography, to analyze venous hemodynamics and identify anatomical abnormalities in the pelvic floor and pelvis. In patients presenting with additional pelvic venous insufficiency (PVI)-related pelvic symptoms, advanced diagnostic techniques, such as cross-sectional imaging, venography, and intravascular ultrasound can be valuable to confirm and establish the appropriate treatment strategy. Since most patients with extra-pelvic VVs of pelvic origin do not report pelvic symptoms, minimally invasive procedures, using the “bottom-up” approach, such as ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy of the pelvic escape points and extra-pelvic VVs, or surgical ligation and miniphlebectomy for these incompetent veins, are usually sufficient. There are several advantages of these local procedures: they are simple, radiation exposure and injection contrast agents are avoided, they are convenient for the patient since they are performed on an outpatient basis, and they can be easily repeated, if required. When the “bottom-up” treatment fails and the extra-pelvic VVs recur quickly or the patient develops pelvic symptoms, management of the pelvic veins including embolization of the ovarian veins or stenting of the iliac veins should be considered. Careful patient selection is essential to avoid overtreatment and achieve optimal clinical outcomes.

Background: Percutaneous deep vein arterialization (pDVA) is considered a treatment modality in patients with no-option critical limb ischemia. However, there is still a paucity of evidence regarding its safety and efficacy. Data sources: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase and Web of Science databases as well as the CENTRAL registry up to the end of June 2023. Methods: This review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42023445171). The risk of bias was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Primary endpoints included technical success, overall survival and limb salvage during the follow-up. Amputation-free survival at 30 days, 6 months and 1 year as well as complete wound healing, major adverse limb events and reintervention were investigated as secondary outcomes. Results: Five observational studies, comprising 208 patients (142 Rutherford class 5/77 Rutherford class 6), were included. MINORS revealed a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis reached a pooled technical success rate of 96.2% (95% CI: 91.5–98.4), an overall survival of 82.8% (95% CI: 70.5–95.2) and a limb salvage rate of 77.2% (95% CI: 65.2–89.1) during the follow-up. The amputation-free survival at 30 days, 6 months and 1 year was 87.8%, 68.7% and 65.6%, respectively. Furthermore, pDVA resulted in a complete wound healing rate of 53.4% (95% CI: 30.3–76.5). The pooled reintervention rate was as high as 46.7% (37.1–56.3%). Conclusions: PDVA seems a feasible bail-out strategy for patients with no option for routine treatment of CLTI. However, due to the small number of studies, the strength of the evidence is low.