Comparison of Radiofrequency Ablation and Cyanoacrylate Closure for Large-Diameter Great Saphenous Vein Insufficiency.

To compare radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) for large-diameter great saphenous vein insufficiency (GSV) between diameters of 12 and 16 mm. This study is a single-centre retrospective study. Subjects who underwent endovenous treatment with RFA (Group A) or CAC (Group B) for GSV insufficiency between June 2015 and June 2021 who were followed up for at least 2 years were included in the study. Subjects who had a 12 to 16 mm target vessel diameter and subjects with grade 3 and grade 4 reflux were included. Subjects' demographic data (age, sex), body mass indices (BMI), clinical, aetiological, anatomic, pathophysiologic (CEAP) classification, GSV diameter, reflux grade, target vessel length, preoperative venous clinical severity score (VCSS), procedural time, postoperative 1 In total, 142 subjects were included (n=71 for both groups). The mean GSV diameter was 13,21±1,00 for Group A and 13,51±0,97 for Group B. The groups did not differ in terms of age, sex, BMI, CEAP classification, GSV diameter, reflux grade, target GSV length, preoperative VCSS, complications, postoperative 24-hour pain status or postoperative 14-day patient satisfaction scale (p>0.05 for all comparisons). The procedure time was significantly shorter in Group B (34,68±4,22 min for Group A vs. 22,59±4,5 min for Group B, p=0,001). In the 1-month and 6-month Duplex ultrasonography of the subjects, partial closure and patency rates in Group B were significantly higher than those in Group A (p=0.003 and p=0.025, respectively). At the 12 Both RFA and CAC were found to be effective in the treatment of large-diameter GSV incompetency. The complication rates were similar between the two techniques. CAC had a shorter procedure time. Although the closure rates in the early postoperative period were better in the RFA group, long-term follow-up demonstrated similar patency rates. The functional results in the long-term follow-up were better in the RFA group.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.