Endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein versus high ligation: long-term results

PREVAIT after modern open surgery and endothermal ablation: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Presence of varices after operative treatment (PREVAIT) is a common finding after varicose vein surgery, and has been shown to significantly reduce the quality of life of those it affects. As such, long-term results after varicose vein interventions have to be taken into account when choosing a technique. This study aims to systematically review current evidence on the recurrence of varicose veins after three different techniques: conventional surgery (HLS), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was performed on the PubMed and Web of Science databases, which returned 546 studies. Fourteen studies were included. Data were extracted using predefined forms.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 2795 patients were included, for a total of 3056 legs treated. 503 legs (16.5%) were treated by HLS, 1791 (58.6%) by EVLA and 762 (25.0%) by RFA. PREVAIT was reported in 34.4% for patients treated by HLS, for a mean follow-up comprised between 18 months and 5 years; 16.6% by EVLA, for a mean follow-up between 112 days and 5 years and 6.7% of those treated by RFA, for a mean follow-up between 106 days and 5 years. Regarding patterns of recurrence, the development of new varicose veins was the most commonly reported mechanism of recurrence after HLS (range: 29.8-91%) and EVLA (range: 40-81.6%), but not RFA, where recanalization of the occluded saphenous trunk accounted for up to 67.0% of the cases. Only one study reported quality of life related recurrence, and included patients treated by HLS and EVLA, but not RFA. Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) score, physical functioning domains of the SF-36 score and patient satisfaction were significantly worse in patients with clinical recurrence. Re-intervention rates after recurrence were reported in 5 studies, ranging between 7.7% and 37.7% for HLS and 0-57.0% for EVLA. Only one study reported data on re-intervention for RFA patients, which was 6.67%.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence is a reliable indicator of long-term efficacy of a varicose vein treatment and appears to occur more frequently after HLS. Although there are several mechanisms of recurrence, the development of new varicose veins was the most commonly observed. There is clear heterogeneity among definitions of recurrence and follow-up periods in literature.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Current Varicose Veins Treatments

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of technologies for treatment of varicose veins over 5 years - conservative care (CONS), surgery (HL/S), ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and cyanoacrylate glue occlusion (CAE).

METHODS

A systematic review was updated and used to construct a Markov decision model. Outcomes were re-intervention on the truncal vein, re-treatment of residual varicosities and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and costs over five years.

RESULTS

UGFS has a significantly greater re-intervention rate than other procedures, while there is no significant difference between the other procedures. The cost per QALY of EVLA versus UGFS in our base-case model is £16966 ($23700) per QALY, which is considered cost-effective in the UK. RFA, MOCA and CAE have greater procedure costs than EVLA with no evidence of greater benefit for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

EVLA is the most cost-effective therapeutic option, with RFA a close second, in adult patients requiring treatment in the upper leg for incompetence of the GSV. MOCA, UGFS, CAE, CONS and HL/S are not cost-effective at current prices in the UK National Health Service. MOCA and CAE appear promising but further evidence on effectiveness, re-interventions and health-related quality of life is needed, as well as how cost-effectiveness may vary across settings and reimbursement systems.

Interventions for great saphenous vein incompetence

BACKGROUND

Great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence, causing varicose veins and venous insufficiency, makes up the majority of lower-limb superficial venous diseases. Treatment options for GSV incompetence include surgery (also known as high ligation and stripping), laser and radiofrequency ablation, and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. Newer treatments include cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation, and endovenous steam ablation. These techniques avoid the need for a general anaesthetic, and may result in fewer complications and improved quality of life (QoL). These treatments should be compared to inform decisions on treatment for varicosities in the GSV. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous steam ablation (EVSA), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and high ligation and stripping (HL/S) for the treatment of varicosities of the great saphenous vein (GSV).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 2 November 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) treating participants for varicosities of the GSV using EVLA, RFA, EVSA, UGFS, cyanoacrylate glue, MOCA or HL/S. Key outcomes of interest are technical success, recurrence, complications and QoL.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 new RCTs for this update. Therefore, we included 24 RCTs with 5135 participants. Duration of follow-up ranged from five weeks to eight years. Five comparisons included single trials. For comparisons with more than one trial, we could only pool data for 'technical success' and 'recurrence' due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and time points reported. All trials had some risk of bias concerns. Here we report the clinically most relevant comparisons. EVLA versus RFA Technical success was comparable up to five years (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.38; 5 studies, 780 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.41; 1 study, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported recurrence, showing no clear difference at three years (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.99; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence), but a benefit for RFA may be seen at five years (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.52 to 5.06; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). EVLA versus UGFS Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 6.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 38.27; 3 studies, 588 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 6.47, 95% CI 2.60 to 16.10; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in recurrence up to three years and at five years (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.36; 2 studies, 443 participants; and OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.87; 2 studies, 418 participants; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). EVLA versus HL/S Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.23; 6 studies, 1051 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in technical success was seen at five years and beyond (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; 5 studies, 874 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrence was comparable within three years and at 5 years (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1459 participants; and OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.76; 7 studies, 1267 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). RFA versus MOCA There was no clear difference in technical success (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.06 to 54.15; 3 studies, 435 participants; low-certainty evidence), or recurrence (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.81; 3 studies, 389 participants; low-certainty evidence). Long-term data are not available. RFA versus HL/S No clear difference in technical success was detected up to five years (OR 5.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 50.81; 2 studies, 318 participants; low-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.69; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in recurrence was detected up to three years (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.51; 4 studies, 546 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but a possible long-term benefit for RFA was seen (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.75; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). UGFS versus HL/S Meta-analysis showed a possible benefit for HL/S compared with UGFS in technical success up to five years (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.94; 4 studies, 954 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30; 3 studies, 525 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear difference was detected in recurrence up to three years (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.77; 3 studies, 822 participants; low-certainty evidence), and after five years (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.71; 3 studies, 639 participants; low-certainty evidence). Complications were generally low for all interventions, but due to different definitions and time points, we were unable to draw conclusions (very-low certainty evidence). Similarly, most studies evaluated QoL but used different questionnaires at variable time points. Rates of QoL improvement were comparable between interventions at follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our conclusions are limited due to the relatively small number of studies for each comparison and differences in outcome definitions and time points reported. Technical success was comparable between most modalities. EVLA may offer improved technical success compared to UGFS or HL/S. HL/S may have improved technical success compared to UGFS. No evidence of a difference was detected in recurrence, except for a possible long-term benefit for RFA compared to EVLA or HL/S. Studies which provide more evidence on the breadth of treatments are needed. Future trials should seek to standardise clinical terminology of outcome measures and the time points at which they are measured.

Outcomes of Saphenous Vein Intervention in the Management of Superficial Venous Incompetence: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the most effective modality of intervention to treat saphenous vein insufficiency.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Endovenous therapies have instigated a paradigm shift in the management of superficial venous incompetence (SVI). When compared with open surgery, endovenous interventions (foam sclerotherapy (FS), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), mechanochemical ablation (MOCA), and cyanoacrylate glue (CAE) closure) potentially offer reduced morbidity with similar procedural efficacy.

METHODS

A systematic review and series of network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were performed assessing risks of procedural failure (within 6-weeks) and recurrence (6-weeks to 5-years), defined by ultrasound, between the different SVI modalities. Treatment comparisons addressing risks of common adverse events, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) and pain were also performed.

RESULTS

A systematic search identified 51 articles, describing 36 RCTs, incorporating 7,576 limbs. Outcome data on ten modalities of intervention were analyzed up to five-year follow-up. CAE resulted in the lowest risk of procedural failure within six-weeks. Foam sclerotherapy had the highest risk of recurrence while high ligation with stripping (HLS) and CHIVA were ranked best to reduce long-term recurrence. No intervention increased risks of venous thromboembolism and there was minimal difference in morbidity between treatments. All interventions improved VCSS (Range -1.02 to -4.95), however RFA demonstrated the greatest improvement, followed by EVLA and HLS between two to five-years. EVLA was associated with the highest risk of pain, while MOCA offered the least.

CONCLUSION

While CAE offered the lowest risk of initial procedural failure, HLS resulted in lower rates of long-term recurrence without considerably increasing morbidity when compared with other endovenous options.

Comparing the Success Rate and Side Effects of Endovenous Laser Ablation and Radiofrequency Ablation to Treat Varicose Veins in the Lower Limbs: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction: Varicosis is a condition affecting the superficial venous system of the lower limbs. Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) is a minimally invasive method that uses different frequencies of laser for treatment. Radiofrequency (RF) has also been effectively used for vein ablation through thermal mechanisms. This study compares the success rate and side effects of EVLA and RF to treat varicose veins in the lower limbs within 12 months. Methods: In this two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled, single-blind study, 1090 patients with lower limb varicosis proven by Doppler ultrasonography (DUS) were randomly placed into one of the two groups: EVLA and RF ablation. In the EVLA group, we used a 980-nm diode laser in a pulse mode and in the RF group, a 7-cm ClosureFast (Covidien, USA) catheter with an RF generator. We assessed pain during the operation and 8 and 24 hours after the surgery by the numerical rating scale (NRS). The patients were followed up on day 7, then 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The presence or absence of pain and then the severity of pain (according to NRS), the recurrence rate, complications, and the length of the procedure were compared. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in the patients' characteristics, major adverse events and pain severity during the procedure and 8 and 24 hours after the surgery. According to NRS, the mean chronic pain severity in the EVLA group was 3.99± 0.754 versus 4.50± 0.657 in the RF group, and the difference was not significant. The length of operation and the recurrence rate 12 months after the procedure were not significantly different. Conclusion: The results of our study further establish the efficacy of EVLT and RF ablation for lower limb varicosis treatment without any significant difference in the clinical outcomes and complications during a 12-months follow-up.

Endovenous ablation and surgery in great saphenous vein reflux: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials protocol

INTRODUCTION

Endovenous ablations are the new standard procedures for treatment of great saphenous vein reflux including endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radio frequency ablation (RFA), endovenous steam ablation (EVSA), mechanochemical ablation (MOCA), cyanoacrylate injection and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS). EVLA and RFA have demonstrated similar anatomical success for short-term outcome, but results are controversial for longer term (≥5 years). Additional evidences from randomised controlled trials have been published. This study is, therefore, conducted to, directly and indirectly, compare outcomes among all procedures stratifying by short-term and long-term follow-up.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Medline and Scopus will be searched from 2000 to September 2018 with predefined search strategy. Interventions of interest are open surgery (ie, saphenofemoral or high ligation (HL) with stripping) and endovenous ablations (ie, EVLA, RFA, EVSA, MOCA, cyanoacrylate injection and UGFS). The primary outcome is anatomical success. Two independent reviewers will select studies, extract data and assess risk of bias. Disagreement will be adjudicated by the third party. Outcomes will be directly pooled if there are at least three studies in that comparison. A fixed-effect model will be used unless heterogeneity is present, in which case a random-effect model will be applied. Sources of heterogeneity will be explored using meta-regression analysis, and sub-group analysis will be done accordingly. Publication bias will be assessed using Egger's test and funnel plot. A network meta-analysis will be applied to indirect compare all interventions including RFA, EVLA, EVLA with HL, UGFS, UGFS with HL and HL with stripping. Probability of being best intervention will be estimated and ranked. Inconsistency assumption will be checked using a design-by-treatment interaction model.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for systematic review and network meta-analysis. The study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018096794.

Cost-Effectiveness of Current and Emerging Treatments of Varicose Veins

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the cost-effectiveness of current technologies (conservative care [CONS], high-ligation surgery [HL/S], ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy [UGFS], endovenous laser ablation [EVLA], and radiofrequency ablation [RFA]) and emerging technologies (mechanochemical ablation [MOCA] and cyanoacrylate glue occlusion [CAE]) for treatment of varicose veins over 5 years.

METHODS

A Markov decision model was constructed. Effectiveness was measured by re-intervention on the truncal vein, re-treatment of residual varicosities, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 5 years. Model inputs were estimated from systematic review, the UK National Health Service unit costs, and manufacturers' list prices. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

CONS has the lowest overall cost and quality of life per person over 5 years; HL/S, EVLA, RFA, and MOCA have on average similar costs and effectiveness; and CAE has the highest overall cost but is no more effective than other therapies. The incremental cost per QALY of RFA versus CONS was £5,148/QALY. Time to return to work or normal activities was significantly longer after HL/S than after other procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

At a threshold of £20,000/QALY, RFA was the treatment with highest median rank for net benefit, with MOCA second, EVLA third, HL/S fourth, CAE fifth, and CONS and UGFS sixth. Further evidence on effectiveness and health-related quality of life for MOCA and CAE is needed. At current prices, CAE is not a cost-effective option because it is costlier but has not been shown to be more effective than other options.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular and surgical revascularization for patients with chronic lower extremity venous insufficiency and varicose veins

BACKGROUND

Chronic lower extremity venous disease (LECVD) is twice as prevalent as coronary heart disease, and invasive therapies to treat LECVD accounted for an estimated $290 million in Medicare expenditures in 2015. Despite increasing use of these invasive therapies, their comparative effectiveness is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatments for patients (symptomatic and asymptomatic) with lower extremity varicosities and/or lower extremity chronic venous insufficiency/incompetence/reflux. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant English-language studies published from January 2000 to July 2016. We included comparative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with >20 patients and observational studies with >500 patients. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term outcomes of placebo, mechanical compression therapy, and invasive therapies (surgical and endovascular) were included. Quality ratings and evidence grading was performed. Random-effects models were used to compute summary estimates of effects.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 57 studies representing 105,878 enrolled patients, including 53 RCTs comprised of 10,034 patients. Among the RCTs, 16 were good quality, 28 were fair quality, and 9 were poor quality. Allocation concealment, double blinding, and reporting bias were inadequately addressed in 25 of 53 (47%), 46 of 53 (87%), and 15 of 53 (28.3%), respectively. Heterogeneity in therapies, populations, and/or outcomes prohibited meta-analysis of comparisons between different endovascular therapies and between endovascular intervention and placebo/compression. Meta-analysis evaluating venous stripping plus ligation (high ligation/stripping) compared with radiofrequency ablation revealed no difference in short-term bleeding (odds ratio [OR]=0.30, 95% CI -0.16 to 5.38, P=.43) or reflux recurrence at 1-2 years (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.37-1.55, P=.44). Meta-analysis evaluating high ligation/stripping versus endovascular laser ablation revealed no difference in long-term symptom score (OR 0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.23, P=.84) or quality of life at 2 years (OR 0.06, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.25, P=.50).

CONCLUSIONS

The paucity of high-quality comparative effectiveness and safety data in LECVD is concerning given the overall rise in endovascular procedures. More high-quality studies are needed to determine comparative effectiveness and guide policy and practice.

Current clinical evidence on endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) from randomised trials

Background Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) is globally counted among the most frequently administered methods to treat saphenous vein incompetence. Technical development proceeded in three particular steps: EVLA #1 – Diode lasers linearly emitting wavelengths from 810 to 980 nm through optical bare fibres; EVLA #2 – Diode or Nd:YAG lasers emitting wavelengths from 1064 to 1500 nm; EVLA #3 – Modified optical fibres warranting an optimised emission geometry by centralisation of the fibre tip (Tulip-fibre, Jacket-tip) or radial emission of the laser beam. Due to the number of different EVLA techniques their value compared with standard surgery (high ligation and stripping, HLS) and other endovascular approaches has to be questioned.

Methods Selective literature analysis based on a systematic PubMed search focussed on randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing EVLA with HLS and other thermal or nonthermal ablation techniques – radiofrequency ablation (RFA), ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), endothermal steam ablation (EStA).

Results The search terms “endovenous”, “laser”, “varicose vein” resulted in 509 publications, hereof 57 RCTs, hereof 24 randomised studies comparing EVLA with other treatment approaches: 15 studies comprise comparisons with standard surgery and further 9 studies with other endovenous techniques. 6 RCTs contain long-term followup data on EVLA #1 vs. HLS suggesting superiority of HLS in terms of same site clinical and duplex detected recurrence from the groin. 15 RCTs are reporting short-term results clearly demonstrating inferiority of EVLA #1 against EVLA #2, EVLA #3, and RFA with respect to postoperative complaints and patients’ quality of life.

Conclusions The first generation endovenous laser systems are disadvantageous or even harmful as compared with more advanced EVLA techniques and RFA in terms of patients’ complaints and side effects. Furthermore, evidence is rising that EVLA #1 is inferior to standard surgery regarding long-term treatment efficacy. Therefore, the application of EVLA #1 in the treatment of saphenous vein incompetence cannot be recommended any longer. In view of the more recently published RCTs reporting long-term superiority of standard surgery, HLS should still be implemented as control group in studies investigating endovenous treatment approaches.

Positioning for Endovenous Laser Ablation: Comparative Study with Thigh Stripping

We performed a comparative study of surgical outcomes and venous functions between endovenous laser ablation with a 980-nm diode laser (EV group) and thigh stripping (ST group). There were no severe complications and initial success rates were 100% in both groups. In the EV group, preoperative symptoms improved in 94.3% of cases, the venous occlusion rate was 98%, and endovenous heat induced thrombosis had occurred in 11.9% (Class 3: 0.7%) at 12 months after the operation. Although comparative study of postoperative venous function by air plethysmography showed significant improvement in both groups, there was less recovery of postoperative venous function in the EV than in the ST group. (This article is a translation of J Jpn Coll Angiol 2015; 55: 13-20.).

Predictors of Recanalization of the Great Saphenous Vein in Randomized Controlled Trials 1 Year After Endovenous Thermal Ablation

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

The objective was to identify predictors to develop and validate a prognostic model of recanalization of the great saphenous vein (GSV) in patients treated with endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA).

METHODS

The search strategy of Siribumrungwong was updated between August 2011 and August 2014 using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane register to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in which patients presenting with GSV reflux were treated with radiofrequency or endovenous laser ablation. Leg level data (n = 1226) of 15/23 selected RCTs were pooled. The primary outcome was recanalization of the GSV; the secondary outcome was change in health related quality of life (HRQoL) measured by the Chronic Venous Insufficiency quality of life Questionnaire or Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire 1 year post-procedure. Candidate predictors were age, sex, body mass index, clinical class, GSV diameter, saphenofemoral junction reflux, type of device, energy, and length of treated vein.

RESULTS

At 1 year, 130 GSVs were recanalized (11%). Clinical class (odds ratio [OR] 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-3.3) and diameter (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.7) of the GSV were the strongest predictors of recanalization. Other predictors included in the final model were sex, type of device, and length of treated vein. The performance of the recanalization model was moderate, with an area under the curve above 0.717. GSV diameter, type of device, and amount of energy delivered were the only predictors of the change of HRQoL. None of the candidate predictors were included in the final HRQoL model (R(2) = .027).

CONCLUSION

There are several important prognostic factors for GSV recanalization and change of HRQoL after EVTA. However, the performance of each model was unsatisfactory to allow use in clinical practice yet.

Comparative Study of Cryostripping and Endovenous Laser Therapy for Varicose Veins: Mid-Term Results

Background

Conventional stripping is considered to be the standard procedure for great saphenous vein (GSV) varicosities, but many other alternative treatments such as cryostripping, endovenous laser therapy (EVLT), radio-frequency ablation, and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy have been developed. Among them, both cryostripping and laser therapy have been reported to be less traumatic, with lower rates of complications and recurrences when compared to conventional stripping. To compare the efficacy of these treatments, we have analyzed and compared the mid-term clinical outcomes of cryostripping and EVLT.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with varicose veins of the GSV and treated with cryostripping or laser therapy between September 2008 and April 2013 were enrolled in this study. Duplex ultrasonography was used for the diagnosis and evaluation of varicosity and reflux, and the clinical-etiology-anatomy-pathophysiology classification was used to measure the clinical severity. The symptoms, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), recurrence rates, and complication rates of the cryostripping and laser therapy groups were analyzed and compared.

Results

A total of 68 patients were enrolled in this study. 32 patients were treated with cryostripping, and 36 patients were treated with laser therapy. The median follow-up period was 29.6 months. Recurrence was noted in three patients from the cryostripping group and in two patients from the EVLT group. There was no difference in the VCSS score, operative time, duration of hospital stay, and complication rate between the cryostripping group and the EVLT group.

Conclusion

The mid-term clinical outcomes of cryostripping were not inferior to those of EVLT. Further, considering its cost-effectiveness, cryostripping seems to be a safe and feasible method for the treatment of varicose veins.

Role of endovenous laser therapy in large and very large diameter great saphenous veins

BACKGROUND

The literature suggests that endovenous laser is less efficacious in great saphenous veins (GSVs) with a diameter of greater than 1 cm. This paper describes the efficacy of endovenous laser therapy (EVLT) in ablating GSV with a diameter greater than 1.0 cm.

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing GSV EVLT between 15 November 2012 and 25 July 2013 was performed. GSV with a maximum diameter of ≥1.0 cm were defined as large, those with a maximum diameter of ≥2.0 cm were defined as very large.

RESULTS

A total of 38 ablations were reviewed; two patients had bilateral GSV vein ablations. All underwent a 6-week post-procedural duplex. There were 20 ablations on veins >1 cm and 4 ablations on veins ≥2.0 cm. Median GSV length was 21.5 cm (16.5 cm for <1 cm, 24.5 cm for 1-2 cm and 24.5 cm for >2 cm). When correcting for length of vein treated, the energy deposited was stable for all patients at 80 J/cm. Tumescent volumes per centimetre were 3.7 mL/cm for veins <1.0 cm and 4.6 mL/cm for veins >1.0 cm. Successful ablation was achieved in 100% of veins independent of size.

CONCLUSION

Ablation rates for large and very large GSVs in our series do not differ from the cohort of patients with GSV < 1.0 cm and from published results for GSVs < 1.0 cm. This supports the use of EVLT for venous insufficiency in the larger diameter GSV typically found in patients on public hospital waiting lists.