OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare three different endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) modalities in the treatment of great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence. METHODS: We performed a single-center, prospective, comparative cohort study that included consecutive patients undergoing EVTA of the GSV. Patients were treated with either segmental radiofrequency ablation (sRFA) or endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) with a 1470-nm dual radial fiber or with a 1470-nm jacket-tip fiber. The clinical classification CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic), 10-cm visual analog scale scores for pain, Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSSs), and chronic venous insufficiency quality-of-life questionnaire (CIVIQ-20) scores were recorded. The primary outcome was clinical success, which was defined as the absence of reflux or recanalization of the GSV and procedure-related complications, assessed at 7 and 30 days and 1 year postoperatively. The secondary outcomes were the assessment of postoperative pain using the VAS and improvement in the VCSSs and CIVIQ-20 scores. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients (160 limbs) had undergone sRFA (sRFA group; n = 53 limbs), 1470-nm radial fiber EVLA (EVLA-R group; n = 55 limbs), or 1470-nm jacket-tip fiber EVLA (EVLA-J group; n = 52 limbs). The patient demographics, CEAP clinical class, and intraoperative details were comparable among the three groups. The GSV occlusion rate at 1 year was 93% in the sRFA group, 93% in the EVLA-R group, and 95% in the EVLA-J group. No major complications were observed postoperatively. Endothermal heat-induced thrombosis was observed in 2 (4.4%), 1 (2.2%), and 2 (4.4%) patients in the sRFA, EVLA-R, and EVLA-J groups, respectively (P > .5). The VCSS showed greater improvement in the EVLA-R group at 1 week compared with that in the sRFA (P = .05) and EVLA-J (P = .002) groups. Changes in the CIVIQ-20 score were in favor of the EVLA-R group at 7 days (-14.3 ± 10.3 vs -7.9 ± 5.9; adjusted difference, 6.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-10.55; P = .01) and 30 days (-12 ± 8 vs -11.2 ± 7; adjusted difference, 5.5; 95% CI, 1.21-9.81; P = .02) postoperatively compared with the sRFA group and at 7 days compared with the EVLA-J group (-14.3 ± 10.3 vs -9.6 ± 7.9; adjusted difference, -4.4; 95% CI, -9.06 to 0.22; P = .05). Analyzing the different components of the CIVIQ-20, pain, and physical scores showed a greater reduction in the EVLA-R group in the early postoperative period compared with that in the sRFA and EVLA-J groups. CONCLUSIONS: All three EVTA modalities showed equal effectiveness and safety for the treatment of GSV reflux. EVLA with the 1470-nm radial fiber showed better outcomes in terms of early postoperative VCSSs and pain and physical CIVIQ scores. The clinical and quality of life benefits were similar for all modalities at 1 year postoperatively.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare three different endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) modalities in the treatment of great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence. METHODS: We performed a single-center, prospective, comparative cohort study that included consecutive patients undergoing EVTA of the GSV. Patients were treated with either segmental radiofrequency ablation (sRFA) or endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) with a 1470-nm dual radial fiber or with a 1470-nm jacket-tip fiber. The clinical classification CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic), 10-cm visual analog scale scores for pain, Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSSs), and chronic venous insufficiency quality-of-life questionnaire (CIVIQ-20) scores were recorded. The primary outcome was clinical success, which was defined as the absence of reflux or recanalization of the GSV and procedure-related complications, assessed at 7 and 30 days and 1 year postoperatively. The secondary outcomes were the assessment of postoperative pain using the VAS and improvement in the VCSSs and CIVIQ-20 scores. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients (160 limbs) had undergone sRFA (sRFA group; n = 53 limbs), 1470-nm radial fiber EVLA (EVLA-R group; n = 55 limbs), or 1470-nm jacket-tip fiber EVLA (EVLA-J group; n = 52 limbs). The patient demographics, CEAP clinical class, and intraoperative details were comparable among the three groups. The GSV occlusion rate at 1 year was 93% in the sRFA group, 93% in the EVLA-R group, and 95% in the EVLA-J group. No major complications were observed postoperatively. Endothermal heat-induced thrombosis was observed in 2 (4.4%), 1 (2.2%), and 2 (4.4%) patients in the sRFA, EVLA-R, and EVLA-J groups, respectively (P > .5). The VCSS showed greater improvement in the EVLA-R group at 1 week compared with that in the sRFA (P = .05) and EVLA-J (P = .002) groups. Changes in the CIVIQ-20 score were in favor of the EVLA-R group at 7 days (-14.3 ± 10.3 vs -7.9 ± 5.9; adjusted difference, 6.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-10.55; P = .01) and 30 days (-12 ± 8 vs -11.2 ± 7; adjusted difference, 5.5; 95% CI, 1.21-9.81; P = .02) postoperatively compared with the sRFA group and at 7 days compared with the EVLA-J group (-14.3 ± 10.3 vs -9.6 ± 7.9; adjusted difference, -4.4; 95% CI, -9.06 to 0.22; P = .05). Analyzing the different components of the CIVIQ-20, pain, and physical scores showed a greater reduction in the EVLA-R group in the early postoperative period compared with that in the sRFA and EVLA-J groups. CONCLUSIONS: All three EVTA modalities showed equal effectiveness and safety for the treatment of GSV reflux. EVLA with the 1470-nm radial fiber showed better outcomes in terms of early postoperative VCSSs and pain and physical CIVIQ scores. The clinical and quality of life benefits were similar for all modalities at 1 year postoperatively.