Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

OBJECTIVE: To compare foam bubble size and bubble size distribution, stability, and degradation rate of commercially available polidocanol endovenous microfoam (Varithena®) and physician-compounded foams using a number of laboratory tests. METHODS: Foam properties of polidocanol endovenous microfoam and physician-compounded foams were measured and compared using a glass-plate method and a Sympatec QICPIC image analysis method to measure bubble size and bubble size distribution, Turbiscan™ LAB for foam half time and drainage and a novel biomimetic vein model to measure foam stability. Physician-compounded foams composed of polidocanol and room air, CO2, or mixtures of oxygen and carbon dioxide (O2:CO2) were generated by different methods. RESULTS: Polidocanol endovenous microfoam was found to have a narrow bubble size distribution with no large (>500 µm) bubbles. Physician-compounded foams made with the Tessari method had broader bubble size distribution and large bubbles, which have an impact on foam stability. Polidocanol endovenous microfoam had a lower degradation rate than any physician-compounded foams, including foams made using room air (p 

Original publication




Journal article



Publication Date





283 - 295


Foam drainage times, biomimetic analysis method, bubble size, bubble size distribution, foam half time, physician-compounded foams, polidocanol endovenous microfoam, polidocanol injectable foam, sclerotherapy, varicose veins, Female, Humans, Male, Polidocanol, Polyethylene Glycols, Sclerosing Solutions