Ali Baran BUDAK, Kemal KORKMAZ, Hikmet Selçuk GEDİK, Ali Ümit YENER, Serhat Bahadır GENÇ, Kerim ÇAĞLI

Dört farklı endovenöz ablasyon tekniğinin karşılaştırılması

Amaç: Bu çalışmada radyofrekans ablasyon ve endovenöz lazer ablasyon tekniklerinin etkinliği ve hastaların yaşam kalitesi üzerine etkisi araştırıldı. Çalışma planı: Ekim 2011 - Ekim 2012 tarihleri arasında, Kalp ve Damar Cerrahisi kliniğimize başvuran ve semptomatik variköz venler nedeniyle endovenöz ablasyon yapılan toplam 368 hastanın (258 kadın, 110 erkek; ort. yaş 41.2 yıl; dağılım 24-62 yıl) 472 ekstremitesi çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastaların %34.1’ine (n=161) 1470 nm dalga boyu diod lazer, %20.1’ine (n=95) 980 nm dalga boyu diod lazer, %26.3’üne (n=124) radyofrekans ablasyonu ve %26.3 (n=124) 1470 nm dalga boyu radyal fiber lazer uygulandı. Bu teknikler ameliyat sonrası komplikasyonlar, tam kapanma, tekrar akım oluşumu oranları ve hasta konforu açısından karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Hiçbir hastada derin ven trombozu, pulmoner emboli, cilt yanığı gibi önemli komplikasyonlar gözlenmedi. Ameliyat sonrası ağrı ve his kaybı, endovenöz lazer ablasyon gruplarında benzerdi. Radyofrekans ablasyon grubunda ağrı ve ekimoz daha az görüldü (n=9; n=2; p

A comparison of four different endovenous ablation techniques

Background: This study aims to investigate the efficacy of radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation techniques and the impact on the quality of life of patients.Methods: Between October 2011 and October 2012, 472 extremities of a total of 368 patients (258 females, 110 males; mean age 41.2 years; range 24 to 62 years) who were admitted to our Cardiovascular clinic and underwent endovenous ablation for symptomatic varicose veins were included in the study. Of the patients, 1470 nm wavelength diode laser in 34.1% (n=161), 980 nm wavelength diode laser in 20.1% (n=95), radiofrequency ablation in 26.3% (n=124), and 1470 nm wavelength radial fiber laser in 26.3% (n=124) was applied. These techniques were compared in terms of the postoperative complications, complete occlusion, recanalization rates, and patient comfort.Results: Any major complication such as deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and skin burn was observed in none of the patients. Postoperative pain and paresthesias were similar in the endovenous laser ablation groups. Radiofrequency ablation group had lesser postoperative pain and ecchymosis (n=9; n=2; p

PDF

___

18. Launois R, Le Moine JG, Lozano FS, Mansilha A. Construction and international validation of CIVIQ-14 (a short form of CIVIQ-20), a new questionnaire with a stable factorial structure. Qual Life Res 2012;21:1051-8.
17. Agus GB, Mancini S, Magi G. The first 1000 cases of Italian Endovenous-laser Working Group (IEWG). Rationale, and long-term outcomes for the 1999-2003 period. Int Angiol 2006;25:209-15.
16. Korkmaz K, Yener AÜ, Gedik HS, Budak AB, Yener Ö, Genç SB, et al. Tumescentless endovenous radiofrequency ablation with local hypothermia and compression technique. Cardiovasc J Afr 2013;24:313-7.
15. Doganci S, Demirkilic U. Comparison of 980 nm laser and bare-tip fibre with 1470 nm laser and radial fibre in the treatment of great saphenous vein varicosities: a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2010;40:254-9.
14. Puggioni A, Kalra M, Carmo M, Mozes G, Gloviczki P. 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. Dermody M, O'Donnell TF, Balk EM. Complications of endovenous ablation in randomized controlled trials. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2013;1:427-36.
12. Marsh P, Price BA, Holdstock J, Harrison C, Whiteley MS. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after venous thermoablation techniques: rates of endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) and classical DVT after radiofrequency and endovenous laser ablation in a single centre. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2010;40:521-7.
11. Hingorani AP, Ascher E, Markevich N, Schutzer RW, Kallakuri S, Hou A, et al. Deep venous thrombosis after radiofrequency ablation of greater saphenous vein: a word of caution. J Vasc Surg 2004;40:500- 4.
10. Manfrini S, Gasbarro V, Danielsson G, Norgren L, Chandler JG, Lennox AF, et al. Endovenous management of saphenous vein reflux. Endovenous Reflux Management Study Group. J Vasc Surg 2000;32:330-42.
9. Malgor RD, Labropoulos N. Diagnosis and follow-up of varicose veins with duplex ultrasound: how and why? Phlebology 2012;27:10-5.
8. Rutherford RB, Padberg FT Jr, Comerota AJ, Kistner RL, Meissner MH, Moneta GL. Venous severity scoring: An adjunct to venous outcome assessment. J Vasc Surg 2000;31:1307-12.
7. Porter JM, Moneta GL. Reporting standards in venous disease: an update. International Consensus Committee on Chronic Venous Disease. J Vasc Surg 1995;21:635-45.
6. Proebstle TM, Alm J, Göckeritz O, Wenzel C, Noppeney T, Lebard C, et al. Three-year European follow-up of endovenous radiofrequency-powered segmental thermal ablation of the great saphenous vein with or without treatment of calf varicosities. J Vasc Surg 2011;54:146-52.
5. Nordon IM, Hinchliffe RJ, Brar R, Moxey P, Black SA, Thompson MM, 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;254:876-81.
4. Gloviczki P, Comerota AJ, Dalsing MC, Eklof BG, Gillespie DL, Gloviczki ML, 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.
3. Tuygun AK, Ketenci B, Günay R, Görür A, Güney MR, Biçer M, et al. Validity and reliability of VEINES-QOL/Sym questionnaire in chronic venous disorders. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2012;53:355-61.
2. Robertson L, Evans C, Fowkes FG. Epidemiology of chronic venous disease. Phlebology 2008;23:103-11.
1. Callam MJ. Epidemiology of varicose veins. Br J Surg 1994;81:167-73.