BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency obliteration (RFO) and endovenous laser treatment (EVLT) are established techniques in varicose therapy. A novel bipolar RFO technique - Radiofrequency Induced Thermotherapy (RFITT) - was introduced in 2007. Comparative studies of RFITT and EVLT with one year follow-up are missing. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of RFITT with EVLT concentrating on occlusion, side-effects, and patients' satisfaction in a prospective non-randomized study. METHODS: 133 patients with incompetent GSV or SSV were treated by RFITT (n=66) or EVLT (n=67). Follow-up at days 1, 7, and months 3, 12 included duplex, digital photoplethysmography (DPPG), assessment of VCSS and patients' satisfaction. RESULTS: Both groups were balanced concerning clinical parameters. Occlusion rates were in trend in favour of EVLT (96.9%) vs RFITT (88.9%), p=0.093, at 12 months follow-up. Functional outcome by DPPG (refilling time: 30.8 vs 31.9 sec.), and side-effects were comparable apart from pain in the first postoperative week, which was more frequent in the EVLT group (0 vs 16.4%, p=0.001). Change in VCSS from baseline was advantageous for EVLT (89.9% vs 79.3%, p=0.005). Major complications did not occur. Both techniques provided excellent satisfaction results. CONCLUSION: After one year RFITT is similarly as effective and safe as EVLT treatment of varicose insufficiency, but needs improvement in treatment parameters.
BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency obliteration (RFO) and endovenous laser treatment (EVLT) are established techniques in varicose therapy. A novel bipolar RFO technique - Radiofrequency Induced Thermotherapy (RFITT) - was introduced in 2007. Comparative studies of RFITT and EVLT with one year follow-up are missing. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of RFITT with EVLT concentrating on occlusion, side-effects, and patients' satisfaction in a prospective non-randomized study. METHODS: 133 patients with incompetent GSV or SSV were treated by RFITT (n=66) or EVLT (n=67). Follow-up at days 1, 7, and months 3, 12 included duplex, digital photoplethysmography (DPPG), assessment of VCSS and patients' satisfaction. RESULTS: Both groups were balanced concerning clinical parameters. Occlusion rates were in trend in favour of EVLT (96.9%) vs RFITT (88.9%), p=0.093, at 12 months follow-up. Functional outcome by DPPG (refilling time: 30.8 vs 31.9 sec.), and side-effects were comparable apart from pain in the first postoperative week, which was more frequent in the EVLT group (0 vs 16.4%, p=0.001). Change in VCSS from baseline was advantageous for EVLT (89.9% vs 79.3%, p=0.005). Major complications did not occur. Both techniques provided excellent satisfaction results. CONCLUSION: After one year RFITT is similarly as effective and safe as EVLT treatment of varicose insufficiency, but needs improvement in treatment parameters.
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