Bulent Mese1, Orhan Bozoglan2, Erdinc Eroglu1, Kemalettin Erdem3, Mehmet Acipayam1, Hasan Cetin Ekerbicer4, Alptekin Yasim1. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Kahramanmaras, Turkey. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Kahramanmaras, Turkey. Electronic address: orhanbozoglan1975@hotmail.com. 3. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey. 4. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare 1,470-nm endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of patients with great saphenous vein diameters of 10 mm or more. METHODS:One hundred twenty consecutive patients presenting to the cardiovascular surgery department with a great saphenous vein diameter exceeding 10 mm at the saphenofemoral junction between January and December 2013 were included in the study. The first randomly selected 60 patients (group 1) received1,470-nm EVLA and the other 60 patients (group 2) received RFA. Patients were assessed on the second day, the first week, and the first, third, and sixth months. Major and minor complications were recorded. RESULTS: Minor complications in EVLA and RFA were hyperemia at 20% and 30% (P = 0.50), ecchymosis at 16.7% and 48.3% (P = 0.02), and edema at 40.0% and 65.5% (P < 0.08), respectively. No major complication was observed in any patient. Recanalization developed during monitoring in 3 patients in the RFA group, a rate of 5%. No recanalization was observed in the EVLA group. Success rates in the EVLA and RFA groups were 100% and 95%, respectively. Mean time to return to daily activity was 0.7 days in the EVLA group and 1.4 days in the RFA group (P < 0.006), whereas mean time to return to work was 1.8 days in the EVLA group and 2.2 days in the RFA group (P < 0.07). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of pain during the procedure or postoperatively. Less pain was reported in the EVLA during both (P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:EVLA using a 1,470-nm radial fiber is superior to RFA in the treatment of saphenous veins larger than 10 mm in diameter.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To compare 1,470-nm endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of patients with great saphenous vein diameters of 10 mm or more. METHODS: One hundred twenty consecutive patients presenting to the cardiovascular surgery department with a great saphenous vein diameter exceeding 10 mm at the saphenofemoral junction between January and December 2013 were included in the study. The first randomly selected 60 patients (group 1) received 1,470-nm EVLA and the other 60 patients (group 2) received RFA. Patients were assessed on the second day, the first week, and the first, third, and sixth months. Major and minor complications were recorded. RESULTS: Minor complications in EVLA and RFA were hyperemia at 20% and 30% (P = 0.50), ecchymosis at 16.7% and 48.3% (P = 0.02), and edema at 40.0% and 65.5% (P < 0.08), respectively. No major complication was observed in any patient. Recanalization developed during monitoring in 3 patients in the RFA group, a rate of 5%. No recanalization was observed in the EVLA group. Success rates in the EVLA and RFA groups were 100% and 95%, respectively. Mean time to return to daily activity was 0.7 days in the EVLA group and 1.4 days in the RFA group (P < 0.006), whereas mean time to return to work was 1.8 days in the EVLA group and 2.2 days in the RFA group (P < 0.07). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of pain during the procedure or postoperatively. Less pain was reported in the EVLA during both (P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:EVLA using a 1,470-nm radial fiber is superior to RFA in the treatment of saphenous veins larger than 10 mm in diameter.
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: S A S Hamann; L Timmer-de Mik; W M Fritschy; G R R Kuiters; T E C Nijsten; R R van den Bos Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 6.939