BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare venous occlusion rates at a one-year follow-up comparing 1920-nm versus 1470-nm endolaser. METHODS: Randomized prospective study with consecutive patients with varicose veins associated to great saphenous reflux. The 1470-nm laser ablation was performed in continuous mode, with power of 10 W, while for the 1920-nm it was set in 5 W. Follow-up data were collected at the 7-day, 30-day, 3-month, 6-month and 1-year visits, and involved clinical, ultrasound evaluation and measurement of occlusion length. RESULTS:Sixty seven patients were included, with 42 limbs operated in the 1470-nm group and 48 limbs in the 1920-nm group. There were no differences in relation to age, CEAP (Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomical and Pathological Classification), VCSS (Venous Clinical Severity Score) and saphenous diameter. The resulting LEED in 1920-nm group was 17.8±0.6 J/cm and vs. 24.7±0.8 J/cm in 1470-nm group (P<0.01). Closure rates were lower for the 1920-nm group: 90.9% vs. 96.8% (P=0.06) at 30 days, 87.5% vs. 96.3% at 6 months (P=0.03), and 87.5% vs. 94.7% (P=0.05) at one year. The 1920-nm group had less ecchymosis (18.7% vs. 52.4%), induration (12.4% vs. 38.1%) and days of analgesic use (1.4±0.2 vs. 2.4±0.4). CEAP and VCSS were reduced over time in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with endolaser 1920-nm was feasible and with reduced complications. The use of low endoluminal energy resulted in lower vein occlusion rates comparing to the 1470-nn laser. Clinical outcome scores were similar between groups.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare venous occlusion rates at a one-year follow-up comparing 1920-nm versus 1470-nm endolaser. METHODS: Randomized prospective study with consecutive patients with varicose veins associated to great saphenous reflux. The 1470-nm laser ablation was performed in continuous mode, with power of 10 W, while for the 1920-nm it was set in 5 W. Follow-up data were collected at the 7-day, 30-day, 3-month, 6-month and 1-year visits, and involved clinical, ultrasound evaluation and measurement of occlusion length. RESULTS: Sixty seven patients were included, with 42 limbs operated in the 1470-nm group and 48 limbs in the 1920-nm group. There were no differences in relation to age, CEAP (Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomical and Pathological Classification), VCSS (Venous Clinical Severity Score) and saphenous diameter. The resulting LEED in 1920-nm group was 17.8±0.6 J/cm and vs. 24.7±0.8 J/cm in 1470-nm group (P<0.01). Closure rates were lower for the 1920-nm group: 90.9% vs. 96.8% (P=0.06) at 30 days, 87.5% vs. 96.3% at 6 months (P=0.03), and 87.5% vs. 94.7% (P=0.05) at one year. The 1920-nm group had less ecchymosis (18.7% vs. 52.4%), induration (12.4% vs. 38.1%) and days of analgesic use (1.4±0.2 vs. 2.4±0.4). CEAP and VCSS were reduced over time in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with endolaser 1920-nm was feasible and with reduced complications. The use of low endoluminal energy resulted in lower vein occlusion rates comparing to the 1470-nn laser. Clinical outcome scores were similar between groups.
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: Vladimir P Minaev; Nikita V Minaev; Vadim Yu Bogachev; Konstantin A Kaperiz; Vladimir I Yusupov Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Ana Paula Pires Silva; Daniel Mendes Pinto; Vanessa Aline Miranda Vieira Milagres; Leonardo Ghizoni Bez; Júlio César Arantes Maciel; Caetano de Souza Lopes Journal: J Vasc Bras Date: 2021-04-28