Efficacy and Safety of Endovenous Microwave Ablation Versus Endovenous Laser Ablation for Varicose Veins in Chronic Great Saphenous Vein Insufficiency: A Meta-Analysis
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Endovenous Microwave Ablation Versus Endovenous Laser Ablation for Varicose Veins in Chronic Great Saphenous Vein Insufficiency: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Ayers Gilberth Ivano Kalaij , Sania Zahrani , Keviano Bobby Saputro , Averina Geffanie Suwana , Taofan , Suci Indriani , Iwan Dakota , Ruth Grace Aurora , Suko Adiarto","doi":"10.1016/j.avsg.2024.12.073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Although guidelines have established endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) as the first-line option for patients with varicose veins (VVs) in chronic great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency; however, chronic vein insufficiency remains a significant health-care burden. Endovenous microwave ablation (EMA) is a promising alternative. This review aims to analyze EMA versus EVLA for VVs in chronic GSV insufficiency.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies across PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library up to November 11, 2024 were searched. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCT and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Cohort studies. Meta-analysis was done using Review Manager 5.4.0 using an inverse variance random-effects model with Duval and Tweedie trim-and-fill sensitivity analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Overall, a total of 2 RCTs and 1 cohort study included. In treating GSV VVs, EMA has proven to have shorter duration of operation significantly compared to EVLA (mean difference: −6.62 [95% confidence interval: −11.91 to −1.32, <em>P</em> = 0.01]) although heterogeneity is high. EMAs have similar profiles in efficacy compared to EVLA (Aberdeen score of quality of life, visual analog scale score, length of hospital stays, and recanalization rate in 6 months). In terms of safety, the incidence of ecchymosis was found to be lower in the EMA group compared to the EVLA group significantly (odds ratio: 0.58). Other safety profiles were found to be similar.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>EMA might lower operating time, potentially reducing procedure risks, and is equally effective as EVLA in treating VVs in chronic GSV insufficiency. Further research comparing these techniques with extended follow-up periods (over 12 months) and standardized study methodologies are still needed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8061,"journal":{"name":"Annals of vascular surgery","volume":"114 ","pages":"Pages 163-174"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of vascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890509625000251","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Although guidelines have established endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) as the first-line option for patients with varicose veins (VVs) in chronic great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency; however, chronic vein insufficiency remains a significant health-care burden. Endovenous microwave ablation (EMA) is a promising alternative. This review aims to analyze EMA versus EVLA for VVs in chronic GSV insufficiency.
Methods
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies across PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library up to November 11, 2024 were searched. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCT and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Cohort studies. Meta-analysis was done using Review Manager 5.4.0 using an inverse variance random-effects model with Duval and Tweedie trim-and-fill sensitivity analysis.
Results
Overall, a total of 2 RCTs and 1 cohort study included. In treating GSV VVs, EMA has proven to have shorter duration of operation significantly compared to EVLA (mean difference: −6.62 [95% confidence interval: −11.91 to −1.32, P = 0.01]) although heterogeneity is high. EMAs have similar profiles in efficacy compared to EVLA (Aberdeen score of quality of life, visual analog scale score, length of hospital stays, and recanalization rate in 6 months). In terms of safety, the incidence of ecchymosis was found to be lower in the EMA group compared to the EVLA group significantly (odds ratio: 0.58). Other safety profiles were found to be similar.
Conclusion
EMA might lower operating time, potentially reducing procedure risks, and is equally effective as EVLA in treating VVs in chronic GSV insufficiency. Further research comparing these techniques with extended follow-up periods (over 12 months) and standardized study methodologies are still needed.
期刊介绍：
Annals of Vascular Surgery, published eight times a year, invites original manuscripts reporting clinical and experimental work in vascular surgery for peer review. Articles may be submitted for the following sections of the journal:
Clinical Research (reports of clinical series, new drug or medical device trials)
Basic Science Research (new investigations, experimental work)
Case Reports (reports on a limited series of patients)
General Reviews (scholarly review of the existing literature on a relevant topic)
Developments in Endovascular and Endoscopic Surgery
Selected Techniques (technical maneuvers)
Historical Notes (interesting vignettes from the early days of vascular surgery)
Editorials/Correspondence
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
