I would like to address a recent post about veins being to small for ccsvi treatment. In my experience this would be an erroneous conclusion. Several factors prognosticate the durability of treatment. Small diameter veins have a poorer prognosis for patency than large diameter veins. They do not preclude treatment.
A small (sub 8 mm) left jugular is not a rare finding. It is on the right. Bilateral sub 8 mm jugulars would be extremely rare in my experience.
At what point is a vein considered hypoplastic? I think it's under 6 mm. Has anyone here had a successfully treated hypoplastic vein? Has any IR here successfully treated one? Successful could be defined either by actually increasing the size of the vein, or by having the vein stay patent and not clot up.
There are other veins, such as vertebrals and ascending lumbars, that are in my understanding too small for treatment.
Smaller diameter veins have a poorer prognosis for patency than larger diameter veins. Size matters.... My left jugular is my small one, and it is the one that needed retreatment, although I don't know if its size had anything to do with it. Residual valve material might be more likely to stick to residual valve material in a smaller vein? In a larger one the flow could keep it more separate? With a smaller vein, it is easier to err in the ballloon size selection and go too big? Obviously clotting is a greater concern with a smaller vein. I've heard the general rule that the left vein is the vein that has complications, if complications are to be had.