Interventions for the treatment of recurrent varicose vein disease arising from the saphenofemoral junction or the great saphenous vein: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
{"title":"Interventions for the treatment of recurrent varicose vein disease arising from the saphenofemoral junction or the great saphenous vein: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Alkis Bontinis, Vangelis Bontinis, Georgios Koudounas, Argirios Giannopoulos, Christos Karkos, Dimitrios Virvilis, Angeliki Chorti, Kiriakos Ktenidis","doi":"10.23736/S0392-9590.24.05323-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We investigated the safety and feasibility of the available interventions in the treatment of recurrent varicose vein disease.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A systematic search on Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published by August 2024 was performed. Primary endpoints included duplex ultrasonography (DUS)-identified recurrence and clinical recurrence.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>Twenty-eight studies, eleven describing endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA), four ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), and thirteen surgery (high ligation with or without stripping) encompassing 2228 limbs, were included. The overall DUS-detected recurrence estimate was 11.84% (95% CI: 7.15-17.40). EVTA displayed the lowest recurrence of 4.27% (95% CI: 0.37-10.75), followed by UGFS 11.19% (95% CI: 6.80-16.42) and surgery 23.27% (95% CI: 15.35-32.19). Statistically significant differences were observed between surgery and both EVTA (P<0.01) and UGFS (P=0.01). The overall clinical recurrence estimate was 24.91% (95% CI: 10.40-42.96) with EVTA portraying the lowest clinical recurrence of 2.37% (95% CI: 0.00-16.81), followed by surgery 31.08% (95% CI: 14.43-50.63). Subgroup analysis identified statistically significant differences between EVTA and surgery (P=0.01). Whereas non-statistically significant differences were identified between the included interventions regarding paresthesia and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), surgery exhibited higher wound infection estimates compared to EVTA of 0.00% (95% CI: 0.00-0.80) versus 4.34% (95% CI: 2.21-7.02, P<0.01). The pooled hematoma and lymphatic complication estimates for surgery were 5.04% (95% CI: 0.50-12.87) and 5.71% (95% CI: 2.91-9.22) respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review demonstrated the superior efficacy of EVTA over surgery in treating recurrent varicose vein disease corroborating its use as the preferred treatment, when feasible. Additionally, UGFS displayed comparable outcomes to EVTA. The notable recurrence estimates associated with surgery call into question its suitability within this context.</p>","PeriodicalId":13709,"journal":{"name":"International Angiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Angiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0392-9590.24.05323-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: We investigated the safety and feasibility of the available interventions in the treatment of recurrent varicose vein disease.
Evidence acquisition: A systematic search on Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published by August 2024 was performed. Primary endpoints included duplex ultrasonography (DUS)-identified recurrence and clinical recurrence.
Evidence synthesis: Twenty-eight studies, eleven describing endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA), four ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), and thirteen surgery (high ligation with or without stripping) encompassing 2228 limbs, were included. The overall DUS-detected recurrence estimate was 11.84% (95% CI: 7.15-17.40). EVTA displayed the lowest recurrence of 4.27% (95% CI: 0.37-10.75), followed by UGFS 11.19% (95% CI: 6.80-16.42) and surgery 23.27% (95% CI: 15.35-32.19). Statistically significant differences were observed between surgery and both EVTA (P<0.01) and UGFS (P=0.01). The overall clinical recurrence estimate was 24.91% (95% CI: 10.40-42.96) with EVTA portraying the lowest clinical recurrence of 2.37% (95% CI: 0.00-16.81), followed by surgery 31.08% (95% CI: 14.43-50.63). Subgroup analysis identified statistically significant differences between EVTA and surgery (P=0.01). Whereas non-statistically significant differences were identified between the included interventions regarding paresthesia and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), surgery exhibited higher wound infection estimates compared to EVTA of 0.00% (95% CI: 0.00-0.80) versus 4.34% (95% CI: 2.21-7.02, P<0.01). The pooled hematoma and lymphatic complication estimates for surgery were 5.04% (95% CI: 0.50-12.87) and 5.71% (95% CI: 2.91-9.22) respectively.
Conclusions: This review demonstrated the superior efficacy of EVTA over surgery in treating recurrent varicose vein disease corroborating its use as the preferred treatment, when feasible. Additionally, UGFS displayed comparable outcomes to EVTA. The notable recurrence estimates associated with surgery call into question its suitability within this context.
期刊介绍：
International Angiology publishes scientific papers on angiology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work. Duties and responsibilities of all the subjects involved in the editorial process are summarized at Publication ethics. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
