Complication rate with the 1940-nm versus 1470-nm wavelength laser.

Hak Hong Keo, Karoline Gondek, Nicolas Diehm, Christoph Leib, Heiko Uthoff, Rolf P Engelberger, Daniel Staub
{"title":"Complication rate with the 1940-nm versus 1470-nm wavelength laser.","authors":"Hak Hong Keo, Karoline Gondek, Nicolas Diehm, Christoph Leib, Heiko Uthoff, Rolf P Engelberger, Daniel Staub","doi":"10.1177/02683555241301192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We hypothesized, that endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) with the highly water specific 1940-nm wavelength laser would reduce ablation-related thrombus extension (ARTE) incidence compared to the less specific 1470-nm laser.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Between February 2017 to March 2023 we identified a consecutive series of patients undergoing EVLA from the prospectively ongoing VEINOVA registry. Patients were treated with the 1940-nm or 1470-nm laser. Demographic data and outcome data were used for this retrospective analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From a total of 3055 EVLA, 2006 procedures were performed with the1470-nm and 1049 with the 1940-nm laser. At 2-6 days follow- up visit (follow up visit 1), all ARTE occurred in 18 (0.9%) of all procedures with the 1470-nm and in 1 (0.1%) with the 1940-nm laser (<i>p</i> = 0.023). DVT was similar in both groups (0.3% vs 0.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.784). Phlebitis occurred in 67 (3.3%) of all procedures with the 1470-nm and in 2 (0.2%; <i>p</i> = 0.003) with the 1940-nm laser and paresthesia in 99 (4.9%) versus 5 (0.5%; <i>p</i> < 0.001), respectively. At 5-6 weeks follow-up (follow up visit 2), all ARTE occurred in 27 (1.4%) of all procedures with the 1470-nm and in 4 (0.4%; <i>p</i> = 0.010) with the 1940-nm laser. DVT was similar in both groups (0.7% vs 0.4%; <i>p</i> = 0.846). Phlebitis occurred in 97 (4.8%) of all procedures with the 1470-nm and in 9 (0.9%; <i>p</i> < 0.001) with the 1940-nm laser and paresthesia in 194 (9.7%) versus 35 (3.3%; <i>p</i> < 0.001), respectively. Occlusion rate was in both groups similar (99.8% vs 99.6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>EVLA using the 1940-nm laser appears to be safe with lower ARTE incidence than using the 1470-nm laser. Phlebitis and paresthesia occurred less frequent with the 1940-nm than with the 1470-nm laser, thus favoring the use of the 1940-nm laser.</p>","PeriodicalId":94350,"journal":{"name":"Phlebology","volume":" ","pages":"2683555241301192"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Phlebology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02683555241301192","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We hypothesized, that endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) with the highly water specific 1940-nm wavelength laser would reduce ablation-related thrombus extension (ARTE) incidence compared to the less specific 1470-nm laser.

Materials and methods: Between February 2017 to March 2023 we identified a consecutive series of patients undergoing EVLA from the prospectively ongoing VEINOVA registry. Patients were treated with the 1940-nm or 1470-nm laser. Demographic data and outcome data were used for this retrospective analysis.

Results: From a total of 3055 EVLA, 2006 procedures were performed with the1470-nm and 1049 with the 1940-nm laser. At 2-6 days follow- up visit (follow up visit 1), all ARTE occurred in 18 (0.9%) of all procedures with the 1470-nm and in 1 (0.1%) with the 1940-nm laser (p = 0.023). DVT was similar in both groups (0.3% vs 0.2%, p = 0.784). Phlebitis occurred in 67 (3.3%) of all procedures with the 1470-nm and in 2 (0.2%; p = 0.003) with the 1940-nm laser and paresthesia in 99 (4.9%) versus 5 (0.5%; p < 0.001), respectively. At 5-6 weeks follow-up (follow up visit 2), all ARTE occurred in 27 (1.4%) of all procedures with the 1470-nm and in 4 (0.4%; p = 0.010) with the 1940-nm laser. DVT was similar in both groups (0.7% vs 0.4%; p = 0.846). Phlebitis occurred in 97 (4.8%) of all procedures with the 1470-nm and in 9 (0.9%; p < 0.001) with the 1940-nm laser and paresthesia in 194 (9.7%) versus 35 (3.3%; p < 0.001), respectively. Occlusion rate was in both groups similar (99.8% vs 99.6%).

Conclusion: EVLA using the 1940-nm laser appears to be safe with lower ARTE incidence than using the 1470-nm laser. Phlebitis and paresthesia occurred less frequent with the 1940-nm than with the 1470-nm laser, thus favoring the use of the 1940-nm laser.

1940 纳米与 1470 纳米波长激光的并发症发生率。
背景:我们假设,与特异性较低的 1470-nm 激光相比,使用 1940-nm 波长的高水特异性激光进行静脉腔内激光消融(EVLA)可降低消融相关血栓扩展(ARTE)的发生率:2017年2月至2023年3月期间,我们从正在进行的前瞻性 VEINOVA 登记中确定了一系列接受 EVLA 的连续患者。患者接受了 1940nm 或 1470nm 激光治疗。本次回顾性分析采用了人口统计学数据和结果数据:在3055例EVLA中,2006例使用1470纳米激光,1049例使用1940纳米激光。在2-6天的随访(随访1)中,使用1470纳米激光进行的所有手术中有18例(0.9%)发生了ARTE,使用1940纳米激光进行的所有手术中有1例(0.1%)发生了ARTE(P = 0.023)。两组的深静脉血栓发生率相似(0.3% vs 0.2%,p = 0.784)。在所有手术中,使用 1470 纳米激光的有 67 例(3.3%)发生了静脉炎,而使用 1940 纳米激光的有 2 例(0.2%;p = 0.003)发生了静脉炎,发生麻痹的分别有 99 例(4.9%)和 5 例(0.5%;p < 0.001)。在 5-6 周的随访(随访 2)中,使用 1470 纳米激光的所有手术中有 27 例(1.4%)出现 ARTE,使用 1940 纳米激光的有 4 例(0.4%;p = 0.010)。两组的深静脉血栓发生率相似(0.7% vs 0.4%; p = 0.846)。在所有手术中,使用 1470 纳米激光的有 97 例(4.8%)发生了静脉炎,而使用 1940 纳米激光的有 9 例(0.9%;p < 0.001)发生了静脉炎,发生麻痹的分别有 194 例(9.7%)和 35 例(3.3%;p < 0.001)。两组的闭塞率相似(99.8% vs 99.6%):结论:与使用 1470 纳米激光相比,使用 1940 纳米激光的 EVLA 似乎更安全,ARTE 发生率更低。与 1470 纳米激光相比,1940 纳米激光的静脉炎和麻痹发生率较低,因此更倾向于使用 1940 纳米激光。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信