We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins.
British Journal of Surgery 2011 August
BACKGROUND: This randomized trial compared four treatments for varicose great saphenous veins (GSVs).
METHODS: Five hundred consecutive patients (580 legs) with GSV reflux were randomized to endovenous laser ablation (980 and 1470 nm, bare fibre), radiofrequency ablation, ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy or surgical stripping using tumescent local anaesthesia with light sedation. Miniphlebectomies were also performed. The patients were examined with duplex imaging before surgery, and after 3 days, 1 month and 1 year.
RESULTS: At 1 year, seven (5.8 per cent), six (4.8 per cent), 20 (16.3 per cent) and four (4.8 per cent) of the GSVs were patent and refluxing in the laser, radiofrequency, foam and stripping groups respectively (P < 0.001). One patient developed a pulmonary embolus after foam sclerotherapy and one a deep vein thrombosis after surgical stripping. No other major complications were recorded. The mean(s.d.) postintervention pain scores (scale 0-10) were 2.58(2.41), 1.21(1.72), 1.60(2.04) and 2.25(2.23) respectively (P < 0.001). The median (range) time to return to normal function was 2 (0-25), 1 (0-30), 1 (0-30) and 4 (0-30) days respectively (P < 0.001). The time off work, corrected for weekends, was 3.6 (0-46), 2.9 (0-14), 2.9 (0-33) and 4.3 (0-42) days respectively (P < 0.001). Disease-specific quality-of-life and Short Form 36 (SF-36(®)) scores had improved in all groups by 1-year follow-up. In the SF-36(®) domains bodily pain and physical functioning, the radiofrequency and foam groups performed better in the short term than the others.
CONCLUSION: All treatments were efficacious. The technical failure rate was highest after foam sclerotherapy, but both radiofrequency ablation and foam were associated with a faster recovery and less postoperative pain than endovenous laser ablation and stripping.
METHODS: Five hundred consecutive patients (580 legs) with GSV reflux were randomized to endovenous laser ablation (980 and 1470 nm, bare fibre), radiofrequency ablation, ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy or surgical stripping using tumescent local anaesthesia with light sedation. Miniphlebectomies were also performed. The patients were examined with duplex imaging before surgery, and after 3 days, 1 month and 1 year.
RESULTS: At 1 year, seven (5.8 per cent), six (4.8 per cent), 20 (16.3 per cent) and four (4.8 per cent) of the GSVs were patent and refluxing in the laser, radiofrequency, foam and stripping groups respectively (P < 0.001). One patient developed a pulmonary embolus after foam sclerotherapy and one a deep vein thrombosis after surgical stripping. No other major complications were recorded. The mean(s.d.) postintervention pain scores (scale 0-10) were 2.58(2.41), 1.21(1.72), 1.60(2.04) and 2.25(2.23) respectively (P < 0.001). The median (range) time to return to normal function was 2 (0-25), 1 (0-30), 1 (0-30) and 4 (0-30) days respectively (P < 0.001). The time off work, corrected for weekends, was 3.6 (0-46), 2.9 (0-14), 2.9 (0-33) and 4.3 (0-42) days respectively (P < 0.001). Disease-specific quality-of-life and Short Form 36 (SF-36(®)) scores had improved in all groups by 1-year follow-up. In the SF-36(®) domains bodily pain and physical functioning, the radiofrequency and foam groups performed better in the short term than the others.
CONCLUSION: All treatments were efficacious. The technical failure rate was highest after foam sclerotherapy, but both radiofrequency ablation and foam were associated with a faster recovery and less postoperative pain than endovenous laser ablation and stripping.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app