Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

Endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) is the preferred treatment for symptomatic incompetent truncal varicose veins. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and laser ablation are commonly used. RFA devices can be either monopolar (F-Care) or bipolar/segmental (ClosureFast). Limited data is available on the comparison between these two modalities of treatment, which suggest that the Great saphenous vein (GSV) ablation is incomplete with the monopolar system. This study compares the results of RFA with the two systems (monopolar and bipolar) with regard to early outcomes of treatment and vein closure rates at 1 year and describes a method that could improve results with monopolar system.

Methods

A prospective audit of 66 limbs (52 patients) undergoing RFA, either monopolar (33limbs) or bipolar (33 limbs) was carried out.

Results

CEAP C4 was the most common clinical stage (41.5% in ClosureFast group and 60.6% in F-Care group). Preoperative VCSS ranged from 3 to 21 (mean 7.48 ± 3.53) in both groups. All patients underwent adjuvant treatment with either foam sclerotherapy (FS) or a combination of FS with concomitant phlebectomy. Procedural complications were infrequent in both treatment groups. Primary outcome at 1 year showed one subject (3.0%) in each group had complete failure. Three subjects (9.1%) in the F-Care group and one subject (3.0%) in the ClosureFast group were found to have partial failure. GSV occlusion rate at 1 year was 97%. Overall, VCSS had significantly improved in both the groups from preoperative values.

Conclusion

Monopolar and bipolar RFA had similar primary closure rates for truncal veins at 1 year. Both are safe and had the same effect with minimal complications. However, F-Care system requires catheter removal, cleaning and reintroduction to achieve similar ablation.

Keywords

F-care closurefast endovenous ablation radiofrequency ablation great saphenous vein varicose veins

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Evans

Fowkes

Ruckley

, et al. Prevalence of varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency in men and women in the general population: Edinburgh vein study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999; 53: 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.3.149

Varicose veins: diagnosis and management (2013) NICE guideline CG168.

Gloviczki

Comerota

Dalsing

Society for Vascular Surgery . American venous forum. The care of patients with varicose veins and associated chronic venous diseases: clinical practice guidelines of the society for vascular surgery and the American venous forum. J Vasc Surg 2011; 53(5Suppl): 2S–48S. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2011.01.079

Wittens

Davies

Bækgaard

, et al. Editor’s choice - management of chronic venous disease: clinical practice guidelines of the european society for vascular surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2015; 49(6): 678–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.02.007

Whiteley

. Current best practice in the management of varicose veins. Clin Cosmet Invest Dermatol 2022; 6: 567–583. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S294990

Siribumrungwong

Noorit

Wilasrusmee

, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing endovenous ablation and surgical intervention in patients with varicose vein. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2012; 44(2): 214–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2012.05.017

Goodyear

Nyamekye

. Radiofrequency ablation of varicose veins: best practice techniques and evidence. Phlebology 2015; 30(2_suppl): 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268355515592771

Woźniak

Kielar

Mlosek

, et al. Comparative analysis of five-year outcomes of lower extremity varicose vein therapy using monopolar and segmental radiofrequency ablation. Int Angiol 2018; 37(6): 457–464. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0392-9590.18.03954-8

Nyamekye

Pullen

Kelly

, et al. Six year extension study of patients from a randomised clinical trial comparing venefit, radiofrequency induced thermal therapy, and endovenous radiofrequency ablation for treatment of incompetent great saphenous veins. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2023; 66(1): 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2023.03.021

10.

Bitargil

Kılıç

. Ablation of the great saphenous vein with F-care versus Closurefast endovenous radiofrequency therapy: double-Blinded prospective study. Phlebology 2020; 35(8): 561–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268355520913389

11.

Diken

Özyalçın

Hafez

, et al.

Radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein; does the choice of monopolar or bipolar catheters affect outcomes?

Phlebology 2023; 8: 02683555231174997.

12.

Hamann

Timmer-de Mik

Fritschy

, et al. Randomized clinical trial of endovenous laser ablation versus direct and indirect radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg 2019; 106(8): 998–1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11187

13.

Luebke

Brunkwall

. Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration, endovenous laser therapy, and foam sclerotherapy for primary varicose. J Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 49(2): 213–233.

14.

Proebstle

Vago

Alm

, et al. Treatment of the incompetent great saphenous vein by endovenous radiofrequency powered segmental thermal ablation: first clinical experience. J Vasc Surg 2008; 47: 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2007.08.056

15.

Ogawa

Hoshino

Midorikawa

, et al. Clinical results of radiofrequency endovenous obliteration for varicose veins. Surg Today 2005; 35: 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-004-2873-7

16.

Nicolini

Group

. Treatment of primary varicose veins by endovenous obliteration with the VNUS closure system: results of a prospective multicentre study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2005; 29(4): 433–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2004.12.022

17.

Almeida

Raines

. Radiofrequency ablation and laser ablation in the treatment of varicose veins. Ann Vasc Surg 2006; 20(4): 547–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10016-006-9098-8

18.

Van den Bos

Arends

Kockaert

, et al. Endovenous therapies of lower extremity varicosities: a meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg 2009; 49(1): 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2008.06.030

19.

Choi

Park

Joh

. The occlusion rate and patterns of saphenous vein after radiofrequency ablation. J Korean Surg Soc 2013; 84(2): 107–113. https://doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2013.84.2.107

20.

Bitargil

El Kiliç

. Comparing local tumescent anesthesia and spinal anesthesia methods during and after endovenous radiofrequency ablation of great saphenous vein. Int Angiol 2020; 39(6): 461–466. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0392-9590.20.04414-4

21.

Proebstle

Alm

Göckeritz

, et al. Five-year results from the prospective European multicentre cohort study on radiofrequency segmental thermal ablation for incompetent great saphenous veins. Br J Surg 2015; 102(3): 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9679

22.

Spiliopoulos

Theodosiadou

Sotiriadi

, et al. Endovenous ablation of incompetent truncal veins and their perforators with a new radiofrequency system. Mid-term outcomes. Vascular 2015; 23(6): 592–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1708538114564462

23.

Nyamekye

Dattani

Hayes

, et al. A randomised controlled trial comparing three different radiofrequency technologies: short-term results of the 3-RF trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2019; 58(3): 401–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.01.033

24.

Nordon

Hinchliffe

Brar

, et al. A prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial of radiofrequency versus laser treatment of the great saphenous vein in patients with varicose veins. Ann Surg 2011; 254(6): 876–881. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318230af5a

Comparative analysis of outcomes of radiofrequency ablation for incompetent great saphenous varicose vein using F-care (monopolar) and ClosureFast (segmental) systems and a method to improve outcomes in the monopolar system

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References