We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Review
Complications of endovenous ablation in randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND: Endovenous ablation (EVA) of the great saphenous vein (GSV), with radiofrequency (RFA) or laser ablation (EVLA), has largely replaced the standard ligation and stripping (L&S). Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported data on efficacy of the ablation with little focus on complications. We analyzed the current literature for short-term complications of EVA as compared with L&S.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Trials Registry, and individual journals from January 2008 through January 8, 2013 for RCTs comparing RFA and/or EVLA and/or L&S to treat GSV incompetence. We excluded studies using foam sclerotherapy, re-do GSV surgery, or the addition of a high GSV ligation to an EVA procedure. We meta-analysized short-term (<1 year) complications using the Peto odds ratio to elucidate differences between RFA (using the VNUS ClosureFAST catheter; VNUS Medical Technologies, Inc, San Jose, Calif), EVLA, and L&S.
RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs met inclusion criteria. There were 317 patients who underwent RFA with ClosureFAST, 1057 patients who had EVLA, and 975 who had L&S. Seventy percent were female with a mean age of 47.5 years. The majority had CEAP clinical class 2 or 3. There was an overall complication rate of 39.6% in the 2624 limbs analyzed over all procedures. There was no evidence of a difference in the rates of venous thromboembolism. There was a significantly higher rate of wound infection for L&S (2.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-3.1%) vs EVLA (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.3%-1.3%; P = .006), but not between L&S and RFA (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.0%; P = .094). The paresthesia rate was significantly lower with EVLA (3.8%; 95% CI, 2.4%-4.5%) as compared with RFA (5.2%; 95% CI, 3.1%-7.9%; P < .001) and L&S (7.4%; 95% CI, 5.3%-8.3%; P < .001). The rate of thrombophlebitis was significantly lower for L&S (3.0%; 95% CI, 2.9%-4.0%) as compared with RFA (5.5%; 95% CI, 3.0%-7.8%; P = .003) and EVLA (5.6%; 95% CI, 4.2%-7.0%; P = .003). There was no difference in the rate of thermal skin burns between RFA and EVLA.
CONCLUSIONS: Endovenous ablation and ligation and stripping of the GSV are not without complications, although usually minor. L&S has a higher wound infection rate and a lower thrombophlebitis rate as compared with EVA. EVLA has a significantly lower rate of paresthesia as compared with RFA and L&S. Thermal skin burns occur with equal frequency in RFA and EVLA.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Trials Registry, and individual journals from January 2008 through January 8, 2013 for RCTs comparing RFA and/or EVLA and/or L&S to treat GSV incompetence. We excluded studies using foam sclerotherapy, re-do GSV surgery, or the addition of a high GSV ligation to an EVA procedure. We meta-analysized short-term (<1 year) complications using the Peto odds ratio to elucidate differences between RFA (using the VNUS ClosureFAST catheter; VNUS Medical Technologies, Inc, San Jose, Calif), EVLA, and L&S.
RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs met inclusion criteria. There were 317 patients who underwent RFA with ClosureFAST, 1057 patients who had EVLA, and 975 who had L&S. Seventy percent were female with a mean age of 47.5 years. The majority had CEAP clinical class 2 or 3. There was an overall complication rate of 39.6% in the 2624 limbs analyzed over all procedures. There was no evidence of a difference in the rates of venous thromboembolism. There was a significantly higher rate of wound infection for L&S (2.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-3.1%) vs EVLA (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.3%-1.3%; P = .006), but not between L&S and RFA (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.0%; P = .094). The paresthesia rate was significantly lower with EVLA (3.8%; 95% CI, 2.4%-4.5%) as compared with RFA (5.2%; 95% CI, 3.1%-7.9%; P < .001) and L&S (7.4%; 95% CI, 5.3%-8.3%; P < .001). The rate of thrombophlebitis was significantly lower for L&S (3.0%; 95% CI, 2.9%-4.0%) as compared with RFA (5.5%; 95% CI, 3.0%-7.8%; P = .003) and EVLA (5.6%; 95% CI, 4.2%-7.0%; P = .003). There was no difference in the rate of thermal skin burns between RFA and EVLA.
CONCLUSIONS: Endovenous ablation and ligation and stripping of the GSV are not without complications, although usually minor. L&S has a higher wound infection rate and a lower thrombophlebitis rate as compared with EVA. EVLA has a significantly lower rate of paresthesia as compared with RFA and L&S. Thermal skin burns occur with equal frequency in RFA and EVLA.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app