Long-term outcomes of endovenous laser ablation, n-butyl cyanoacrylate, and radiofrequency ablation for treatment of chronic venous insufficiency.
Catheter Ablation
/ adverse effects
Enbucrilate
/ adverse effects
Humans
Laser Therapy
/ adverse effects
Pain
/ surgery
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Saphenous Vein
/ diagnostic imaging
Treatment Outcome
Varicose Veins
/ diagnostic imaging
Venous Insufficiency
/ diagnostic imaging
Endovenous laser ablation
Laser ablation
N-butyl cyanoacrylate
Radiofrequency ablation
Saphenous vein
Venous insufficiency
Journal
Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders
ISSN: 2213-3348
Titre abrégé: J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101607771
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
received:
24
04
2021
accepted:
13
10
2021
pubmed:
25
10
2021
medline:
22
6
2022
entrez:
24
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the present retrospective, single-center study, we evaluated the long-term effectiveness and reliability of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), endovenous n-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) application, and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the management of chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). The medical records of patients who had undergone EVLA, NBCA, or RFA for CVI from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2017 were reviewed. The medical records included data on sex, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and symptoms at admission. The great saphenous vein diameter, CEAP (Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology) classification, and venous clinical severity score were also recorded. All the patients were followed up with physical examinations and color Doppler ultrasound scan at the first week and 6 and 12 months after treatment. After 12 months, the follow-up examinations were performed annually. A total of 232 patients who had undergone lower limb CVI surgical treatment (EVLA, n = 77; NBCA, n = 73; RFA, n = 82). The mean follow-up time was 67.5 ± 4.7 months. The procedure duration was significantly shorter for the NBCA group (13.5 minutes) vs that for the EVLA (31.7 minutes) and RFA (27.9 minutes) groups (P = .001). The pain score was highest in the EVLA group (P = .001). The EVLA group had also experienced a significantly greater incidence of complications and a longer time to return to daily activities (P = .001). The post hoc analysis revealed comparable occlusion success among the three groups on the first postoperative day and at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. However, significantly better occlusion rates were found for RFA vs EVLA at 3 and 5 years of follow-up (P = .024 and P = .011, respectively). The success of NBCA and RFA was similar at 3 and 5 years of follow-up (P = .123 and P = .330, respectively). The outcomes showed similar early postoperative occlusion success among all three CVI treatment techniques. However, RFA resulted in a significantly higher success rate compared with EVLA at 3 and 5 years of follow-up. Additionally, the NBCA and RFA procedures achieved comparable long-term success. However, EVLA was associated with significantly greater complication rates and pain scores and a longer time to return to daily activities. The NBCA procedure had a significantly shorter operation time compared with the other procedures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In the present retrospective, single-center study, we evaluated the long-term effectiveness and reliability of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), endovenous n-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) application, and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the management of chronic venous insufficiency (CVI).
METHODS
The medical records of patients who had undergone EVLA, NBCA, or RFA for CVI from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2017 were reviewed. The medical records included data on sex, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and symptoms at admission. The great saphenous vein diameter, CEAP (Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology) classification, and venous clinical severity score were also recorded. All the patients were followed up with physical examinations and color Doppler ultrasound scan at the first week and 6 and 12 months after treatment. After 12 months, the follow-up examinations were performed annually.
RESULTS
A total of 232 patients who had undergone lower limb CVI surgical treatment (EVLA, n = 77; NBCA, n = 73; RFA, n = 82). The mean follow-up time was 67.5 ± 4.7 months. The procedure duration was significantly shorter for the NBCA group (13.5 minutes) vs that for the EVLA (31.7 minutes) and RFA (27.9 minutes) groups (P = .001). The pain score was highest in the EVLA group (P = .001). The EVLA group had also experienced a significantly greater incidence of complications and a longer time to return to daily activities (P = .001). The post hoc analysis revealed comparable occlusion success among the three groups on the first postoperative day and at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. However, significantly better occlusion rates were found for RFA vs EVLA at 3 and 5 years of follow-up (P = .024 and P = .011, respectively). The success of NBCA and RFA was similar at 3 and 5 years of follow-up (P = .123 and P = .330, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
The outcomes showed similar early postoperative occlusion success among all three CVI treatment techniques. However, RFA resulted in a significantly higher success rate compared with EVLA at 3 and 5 years of follow-up. Additionally, the NBCA and RFA procedures achieved comparable long-term success. However, EVLA was associated with significantly greater complication rates and pain scores and a longer time to return to daily activities. The NBCA procedure had a significantly shorter operation time compared with the other procedures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34688972
pii: S2213-333X(21)00515-1
doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2021.10.009
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Enbucrilate
F8CEP82QNP
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
865-871Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.