Saphenous vein diameter is a single risk factor for early recanalization after endothermal ablation of incompetent great saphenous vein

Abstract

Background and aim

The aim of this study was to compare endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) techniques for efficacy and side effects for great saphenous vein (GSV) ablation.

Materials and methods

Two hundred twenty-one patients and 287 extremities that underwent GSV ablation with EVLA and RFA methods were analysed retrospectively; 135 GSVs were treated with EVLA, 152 GSVs were treated with RFA. Physical examination and Ultrasound (US) records at the first week, first month and third month were evaluated. Recanalization, endothermal heat-induced thrombosis formation, presence of ecchymosis greater than 10 cm and GSV diameter parameters were statistically analyzed.

Results

In the RFA group, 96.7% of the GSVs that were ablated were occluded at the end of the third month. In the EVLA group, this rate was 92.6%. There was no statistically significant difference between success of ablation (P = 0.118). In the RFA group, ecchymotic areas, that is larger than 10 cm diameter were observed in 16 extremities, whereas in the EVLA group, 66 of 135 (48.9%) limbs were found to have ecchymotic area larger than 10 cm (P < 0.001). More recanalizations were observed in GSVs larger than 10 mm in diameter which was statistically significant (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Both EVLA and RFA methods are effective in treating GSV reflux. Compared to the EVLA, less ecchymosis occurs after RFA procedures. Regardless of the type of method used, the GSV diameter is a single predictor of recanalization.

Keywords

Venous reflux saphenous vein endovenous thermal ablation recurrent varices varicose veins

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gloviczki

Comerota

Dalsing

, et al. 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: 2S–48S.

Golbasi

Turkay

Erbasan

, et al. Endovenous laser with miniflebectomy for treatment of varicose veins and effect of different levels of laser energy on recanalization. A single center experience. Lasers Med Sci 2015; 30: 103–108.

Zheng

, et al. Comparison of ultrasound-guided endovenous laser ablation and radiofrequency for the varicose veins treatment: an updated meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2017; 39: 267–275.

Aurshina

Alsheekh

Kibrik

, et al. Recanalization after endovenous thermal ablation. Ann Vasc Surg 2018; 52: 158–162.

Rasmussen

Lawaetz

Bjoern

, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg 2011; 98: 1079–1087.

Ahadiat

Higgins

, et al. Review of endovenous thermal ablation of the great saphenous vein: endovenous laser therapy versus radiofrequency ablation. Dermatol Surg 2018; 44: 679–688.

Mese

Bozoglan

Eroglu

, et al. A comparison of 1,470-nm endovenous laser ablation and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of great saphenous veins 10 mm or more in size. Ann Vasc Surg 2015; 29: 1368–1372.

Korepta

Watson

Mansour

, et al. Outcomes of a single-center experience with classification and treatment of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis after endovenous ablation. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2017; 5: 332–338.

Van der Velden

Lawaetz

De Maeseneer

, et al. Predictors of recanalization of the great saphenous vein in randomized controlled trials 1 year after endovenous thermal ablation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2016; 52: 234–241.

10.

Atasoy

MM.

Efficacy and safety of endovenous laser ablation in very large and tortuous great saphenous veins. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2015; 26: 1347–1352.