INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to review the information available to the public regarding the treatment of varicose veins on dedicated UK-based websites. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Websites were identified by using the Google search engine. All identified websites were examined, noting the range of treatments explained and their stated potential complications. Website ownership was also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 49 websites were identified, belonging to individual physicians (21), private clinics or groups (15), national institutions (4) and device/drug manufacturers (4). Five websites were simply redirecting portals and, hence, were excluded from further analysis. Treatment methods discussed were conventional surgery (32), endovenous laser [EVLA] and/or radiofrequency ablation [RFA] (31), and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy [UGFS] (27). Only 19 websites (43%) discussed all treatment methods. Complications mentioned following surgery were: cutaneous nerve damage (56%), recurrence (56%), infection (53%), bleeding (41%) and venous thrombo-embolism (38%). Complications following EVLA/RFA were: cutaneous nerve damage (42%), recurrence (42%), venous thrombo-embolism (39%) and burns (35%). Complications following UGFS were: pigmentation (59%), venous thrombo-embolism (48%), ulceration (41%), recurrence (41%), allergy (26%) and visual disturbance (26%). CONCLUSIONS: Over 50% of the websites examined did not mention all the management methods now available for varicose veins. More importantly, the majority of the websites did not warn of the common complications of intervention. Currently, information on the Internet cannot be relied upon to supplement informed consent and may actually generate unrealistic patient expectations.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to review the information available to the public regarding the treatment of varicose veins on dedicated UK-based websites. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Websites were identified by using the Google search engine. All identified websites were examined, noting the range of treatments explained and their stated potential complications. Website ownership was also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 49 websites were identified, belonging to individual physicians (21), private clinics or groups (15), national institutions (4) and device/drug manufacturers (4). Five websites were simply redirecting portals and, hence, were excluded from further analysis. Treatment methods discussed were conventional surgery (32), endovenous laser [EVLA] and/or radiofrequency ablation [RFA] (31), and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy [UGFS] (27). Only 19 websites (43%) discussed all treatment methods. Complications mentioned following surgery were: cutaneous nerve damage (56%), recurrence (56%), infection (53%), bleeding (41%) and venous thrombo-embolism (38%). Complications following EVLA/RFA were: cutaneous nerve damage (42%), recurrence (42%), venous thrombo-embolism (39%) and burns (35%). Complications following UGFS were: pigmentation (59%), venous thrombo-embolism (48%), ulceration (41%), recurrence (41%), allergy (26%) and visual disturbance (26%). CONCLUSIONS: Over 50% of the websites examined did not mention all the management methods now available for varicose veins. More importantly, the majority of the websites did not warn of the common complications of intervention. Currently, information on the Internet cannot be relied upon to supplement informed consent and may actually generate unrealistic patient expectations.