Sedat Ozan KARAKİŞİ, Şaban ERGENE, Doğuş HEMŞİNLİ

Great saphenous varicose vein treatment with endovenous ablation techniques: A comparison of EVLA and RF

Aim: In this study, we compared the clinical follow-up results and complication and success rates of patients undergoing 1470 nm wavelength endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in our clinic.Material and Methods: The records of 581 patients treated in our clinic due to clinical symptoms arising from great saphenous vein insufficiency between January 2014 and September 2018 were examined retrospectively. Three hundred fifty-seven of these patients treated with EVLA or RFA and with no deficient data were included in the study. Patients with reflux in the saphenofemoral junction lasting at least 0.5 sec, with a great saphenous vein diameter of at least 7 mm, 2 cm distal to the saphenofemoral junction, and of at least 5.5 mm at knee level, and with CEAP stage C2-C5 were scheduled for endovenous ablation. The patients were randomly distributed between the established EVLA and RFA treatment groups. Data for patients’ diagnostic and therapeutic processes were recorded and evaluated in the light of information in the literature. Results: The EVLA group consisted of 86 patients (42 male, 44 female; mean age 46 years, range 26-71), and the RFA group of 271 (113 male, 158 female; mean age 43.3 years; range 20-77). The mean follow-up time was 27.2 months. No significant differences were determined in terms of patients’ demographic data, preoperative additional diagnoses, CEAP classification values, duration of reflux, or proximal and distal great saphenous vein diameter values. Thrombophlebitis developed in 14 patients and ecchymosis/hematoma in 32. No significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of complications. Great saphenous vein occlusion rates at Doppler ultrasonography six months after treatment were 91.8% in the EVLA group and 94% in the RFA group (p=0.46). Conclusion: Our results suggest that neither of the two endovenous ablation methods is superior to the other.

PDF

___

1. Karaca FE, Arnaz A. Recanalization rates after endovenous laser ablation in patients with saphenous vein reflux. Damar Cer Derg 2018;27:57-60.
2. Akca B, Erdil N, Colak MC, et al. Treatment of chronic venous insufficiency with great saphenous vein endovenous radiofrequency ablation and miniphlebectomy in a single session. Damar Cer Derg 2017;26:85-90.
3. Yalcin M, Godekmerdan E, Tayfur KD, et al. Early and Midterm Results of Our 585 Patients that Underwent Endovenous Ablation Therapy. Damar Cer Derg 2016;25:24-30.
4. Uncu H, Ocak FT, Karaca S, et al. Comparison of midterm results of 980 nm wavelength endovenous laser ablation and radiofrequency ablation in varicous vein surgery. Turk Gogus Kalp Dama 2015;23:678-82.
5. Ozcaliskan O, Arslanoglu Y, Deniz H, et al. Early and Mid Term Results of Our 120 Patients Treated with Endovenous Ablation Techniques in Terms of Deep Venous Thrombosis and Clinical Improvement. Damar Cer Derg 2012;21:263-8.
6. Hamann SAS, Timmer-de Mik L, FritschyWM, 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;106:998-1004.
7. Kubat E, Unal CS, Geldi O, et al. What is the optimal treatmenttechnique for great saphenous vein diameter of ≥10 mm? Comparison of five different approaches. Acta Chir Belg 2019;120:1-8. Published Online: Oct 25, 2019.
8. Yoon WJ, Dresher M, Crisostomo PR, et al. Delineating the durability outcome differences after saphenous ablation with laser versus radiofrequency. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2019;7:486-92.
9. Gloviczki P, Comerota AJ, Dalsing MC, 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;53:2-48.
10. Navarro L, Min RJ, Bone C. Endovenous laser: a new minimally invasive method of treatment of varicose veins preliminary observations using an 810 nm diode laser. Dermatol Surg 2001;27:117-22.
11. Lurie F, Creton D, EklofB, et al. Prospective randomized study of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration (closure procedure) versus ligation and stripping in a selected patient population (EVOLVeS Study). J Vasc Surg 2003;38:207-14.
12. Puggioni A, Kalra M, Carmo M, et al. Endovenous laser therapy and radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein: analysis of early efficacy and complications. J Vasc Surg 2005;42:488-93.
13. Wittens C, Davies AH, Baekgaard N, 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;49:678-737.
14. Eroglu E, Yasim A. A randomised clinical trial comparing N-butyl cyanoacrylate, radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation for the treatment of superficial venous incompetence: Two year follow up results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2018;56:553-60.
15. Rasmussen L, Lawaetz M, Serup J, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins with 3-year follow-up. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2013;1:349-56.
16. Aurshina A, Alsheekh A, Kibrik P, et al. Recanalization after endovenous thermal ablation. Ann Vasc Surg 2018;52:158-62.