Witold Woźniak1, Maciej Kielar2, R Krzysztof Mlosek3, Piotr Ciostek4. 1. Department of General and Vascular Surgery, Second Faculty of Medicine with the English Division and the Physiotherapy Division, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland - drww@onet.pl. 2. Division of Health Science, Department of Cancer Nursing, Jan Kochanowski University, Kielce, Poland. 3. Department of Sonography and Mammography, Second Faculty of Medicine with the English Division and the Physiotherapy Division, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. 4. Department of General and Vascular Surgery, Second Faculty of Medicine with the English Division and the Physiotherapy Division, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare efficacy and safety of segmental and monopolar radiofrequency ablation in the management of lower extremity varicose veins. METHODS: A total of 193 patients were treated with segmental RF ablation (Venefit; N.=97) or monopolar RF ablation (EVRF; N.=96) for lower extremity varicose veins from 2010 to 2012. A single extremity of each patient with isolated GSV or SSV insufficiency was enrolled. The differences between the two groups in demographic parameters, disease severity, treated veins, peri- and postoperative complications, and treatment efficacy indicators (VCSS) were evaluated. RESULTS: Based on Kaplan-Meier's analysis, the occlusion rate after 5 years was 87.6% in Venefit group and 87.8% in EVFR group (P>0.05). Varicose vein recurrence rates were 10.3% and 12.9% in the Venefit and EVFR groups, respectively (P>0.05). The VCSS reduction was comparable between the two groups (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Venefit and EVRF systems can be considered equivalent in terms of efficacy and safety in the management of lower extremity varicose veins.
BACKGROUND: To compare efficacy and safety of segmental and monopolar radiofrequency ablation in the management of lower extremity varicose veins. METHODS: A total of 193 patients were treated with segmental RF ablation (Venefit; N.=97) or monopolar RF ablation (EVRF; N.=96) for lower extremity varicose veins from 2010 to 2012. A single extremity of each patient with isolated GSV or SSV insufficiency was enrolled. The differences between the two groups in demographic parameters, disease severity, treated veins, peri- and postoperative complications, and treatment efficacy indicators (VCSS) were evaluated. RESULTS: Based on Kaplan-Meier's analysis, the occlusion rate after 5 years was 87.6% in Venefit group and 87.8% in EVFR group (P>0.05). Varicose vein recurrence rates were 10.3% and 12.9% in the Venefit and EVFR groups, respectively (P>0.05). The VCSS reduction was comparable between the two groups (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Venefit and EVRF systems can be considered equivalent in terms of efficacy and safety in the management of lower extremity varicose veins.