BACKGROUND:Eighty subjects were treated with either 1 or 3% polidocanol foam to compare the efficacy and adverse sequelae of each concentration of polidocanol foam. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the effects of two different concentrations of polidocanol foam. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During a 6-month period, we treated 80 consecutive patients with primary incompetent great saphenous veins in combination with saphenofemoral junction incompetence. These patients were treated with foam of either 1 or 3% polidocanol. Duplex analyses were made before treatment and in follow-up visits to determine the presence or absence of reflux. RESULTS: After 1 year, there was a clinically relevant difference in percentage of patients with occlusion of the treated great saphenous vein between both groups: 69.5% in the 1% foam group versus 80.1% in the 3% foam group; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=.249). After 1 year of follow-up, patients in the 3% polidocanol group noticed a larger cosmetic improvement than patients in the 1% group. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of primary incompetent greater saphenous veins, 3% polidocanol foam seems to be more effective than 1% polidocanol foam. The side effects were approximately similar in both groups.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Eighty subjects were treated with either 1 or 3% polidocanol foam to compare the efficacy and adverse sequelae of each concentration of polidocanol foam. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the effects of two different concentrations of polidocanol foam. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During a 6-month period, we treated 80 consecutive patients with primary incompetent great saphenous veins in combination with saphenofemoral junction incompetence. These patients were treated with foam of either 1 or 3% polidocanol. Duplex analyses were made before treatment and in follow-up visits to determine the presence or absence of reflux. RESULTS: After 1 year, there was a clinically relevant difference in percentage of patients with occlusion of the treated great saphenous vein between both groups: 69.5% in the 1% foam group versus 80.1% in the 3% foam group; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=.249). After 1 year of follow-up, patients in the 3% polidocanol group noticed a larger cosmetic improvement than patients in the 1% group. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of primary incompetent greater saphenous veins, 3% polidocanol foam seems to be more effective than 1% polidocanol foam. The side effects were approximately similar in both groups.
Authors: E Rabe; F X Breu; I Flessenkämper; H Gerlach; S Guggenbichler; B Kahle; R Murena; S Reich-Schupke; T Schwarz; M Stücker; E Valesky; S Werth; F Pannier Journal: Hautarzt Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 0.751
Authors: F Pannier; T Noppeney; J Alm; F X Breu; G Bruning; I Flessenkämper; H Gerlach; K Hartmann; B Kahle; H Kluess; E Mendoza; D Mühlberger; A Mumme; H Nüllen; K Rass; S Reich-Schupke; D Stenger; M Stücker; C G Schmedt; T Schwarz; J Tesmann; J Teßarek; S Werth; E Valesky Journal: Hautarzt Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 1.198
Authors: Dario Carugo; Dyan N Ankrett; Vincent O'Byrne; David D I Wright; Andrew L Lewis; Martyn Hill; Xunli Zhang Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 3.896