Comparative analysis of early outcomes of radiofrequency ablation and 1470-nm endovenous laser ablation in the treatment of great saphenous vein insufficiency

IF 0.2 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Indian Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Pub Date : 2020-07-01 DOI:10.4103/ijves.ijves_82_19
D. Prabakar, S. Jahangir
{"title":"Comparative analysis of early outcomes of radiofrequency ablation and 1470-nm endovenous laser ablation in the treatment of great saphenous vein insufficiency","authors":"D. Prabakar, S. Jahangir","doi":"10.4103/ijves.ijves_82_19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Minimally invasive Endovenous Thermal Ablation Therapy has revolutionized the treatment of varicose veins. Comparison of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and Endovenous Laser Ablation (EVLA) needs to be more elaborated in the context of better management of patients. The objective of this study is to compare 1470-nm endovenous laser Ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of patients with great saphenous vein Insufficiency. Methods: There were 100 consecutive patients presenting to our department with a great saphenous vein insufficiency treated between June 2018 and June 2019 who were included in the study. The first randomly selected 50 patients (group 1) received 1470-nm EVLA and the other 50 patients (group 2) received RFA. Patients were assessed on the second day, the first week, and the first month in terms of post-operative complications, return to routine activity and work, and postoperative pain. Results: 50 patients were allocated to each group. There was no statistically significant difference between two groups in terms of postoperative pain. Time to return to daily activity was 5.1 ± 1.12 hours in the EVLA group and 6.9 ± 0.93 hours in the RFA group (P = 0.001), whereas time to return to work was 6.7 ± 1.03 days in the EVLA group and 7.4 ± 1.07 days in the RFA group (P = 0.003). Minor complications in EVLA and RFA group were ecchymosis 26% and 32% (P = 0.509) edema 24% and 34% (P = 0.271), and induration 14% and 22% (P = 0.298), respectively. No major complication were observed in any group. Conclusion: EVLA using a 1470-nm radial fiber is an acceptable and efficacious treatment option over RFA in management of symptomatic varicose veins patients in terms of early outcome. However, long term follow up and more studies on larger populations are required to establish the superiority of either method.","PeriodicalId":13375,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery","volume":"79 9","pages":"227"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijves.ijves_82_19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive Endovenous Thermal Ablation Therapy has revolutionized the treatment of varicose veins. Comparison of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and Endovenous Laser Ablation (EVLA) needs to be more elaborated in the context of better management of patients. The objective of this study is to compare 1470-nm endovenous laser Ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of patients with great saphenous vein Insufficiency. Methods: There were 100 consecutive patients presenting to our department with a great saphenous vein insufficiency treated between June 2018 and June 2019 who were included in the study. The first randomly selected 50 patients (group 1) received 1470-nm EVLA and the other 50 patients (group 2) received RFA. Patients were assessed on the second day, the first week, and the first month in terms of post-operative complications, return to routine activity and work, and postoperative pain. Results: 50 patients were allocated to each group. There was no statistically significant difference between two groups in terms of postoperative pain. Time to return to daily activity was 5.1 ± 1.12 hours in the EVLA group and 6.9 ± 0.93 hours in the RFA group (P = 0.001), whereas time to return to work was 6.7 ± 1.03 days in the EVLA group and 7.4 ± 1.07 days in the RFA group (P = 0.003). Minor complications in EVLA and RFA group were ecchymosis 26% and 32% (P = 0.509) edema 24% and 34% (P = 0.271), and induration 14% and 22% (P = 0.298), respectively. No major complication were observed in any group. Conclusion: EVLA using a 1470-nm radial fiber is an acceptable and efficacious treatment option over RFA in management of symptomatic varicose veins patients in terms of early outcome. However, long term follow up and more studies on larger populations are required to establish the superiority of either method.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
射频消融与1470 nm静脉内激光消融治疗大隐静脉功能不全的早期疗效对比分析
背景:微创静脉内热消融治疗已经彻底改变了静脉曲张的治疗。射频消融(RFA)和静脉内激光消融(EVLA)的比较需要在更好地管理患者的背景下进行更详细的阐述。本研究的目的是比较1470 nm静脉内激光消融(EVLA)和射频消融(RFA)治疗大隐静脉功能不全患者的疗效。方法:在2018年6月至2019年6月期间,我科连续有100名大隐静脉功能不全患者接受了治疗,他们被纳入了研究。第一个随机选择的50名患者(第1组)接受1470nm EVLA,其他50名患者接受RFA。在第二天、第一周和第一个月对患者的术后并发症、恢复日常活动和工作以及术后疼痛进行评估。结果:每组50例。在术后疼痛方面,两组之间没有统计学上的显著差异。EVLA组恢复日常活动的时间为5.1±1.12小时,RFA组为6.9±0.93小时(P=0.001),而EVLA组和RFA组恢复工作的时间分别为6.7±1.03天和7.4±1.07天(P=0.003),分别地任何一组均未观察到重大并发症。结论:就早期结果而言,与RFA相比,使用1470nm径向纤维的EVLA是一种可接受且有效的治疗方案,可用于治疗有症状的静脉曲张患者。然而,需要对更大的人群进行长期随访和更多的研究,以确定这两种方法的优越性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Revealing the Intercellular Communication Changes of Human Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms at Single-cell Resolution External jugular veinous thrombosis: A rare presentation of Hansen's disease COVID-related acute limb ischemia: The Indian data Popliteal vein aneurysm – Rare cause of knee pain Surgical repair of acute traumatic aortic transection using partial or left heart bypass: Our experience of six cases
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1