Radiofrequency vs mechanochemical ablation for small saphenous vein insufficiency.

IF 3.4 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Vincenzo Ardita, Ferdinando Benito Attilio Valente, Nicola Galati, Claudia Anselmi, Carlo Campesi, Matteo Bossi, Roberto Chiesa, Domenico Baccellieri
{"title":"Radiofrequency vs mechanochemical ablation for small saphenous vein insufficiency.","authors":"Vincenzo Ardita, Ferdinando Benito Attilio Valente, Nicola Galati, Claudia Anselmi, Carlo Campesi, Matteo Bossi, Roberto Chiesa, Domenico Baccellieri","doi":"10.1024/0301-1526/a001261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> <i>Background:</i> Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) have emerged as less invasive alternatives to traditional surgical interventions, offering reduced recovery times and comparable efficacy. This study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes between RFA and MOCA in treating SSV insufficiency. <i>Materials and methods:</i> this is a retrospective, nonrandomized study that involved patients who underwent either RFA or MOCA between 2015 to 2019. Data collected included demographics, clinical grading, procedural specifics, and follow-up outcomes. The primary endpoint was the comparison of freedom from recanalization and freedom from reinterventions rates, while secondary endpoints focused on recurrences rates and clinical outcomes assessed by revised clinical severity score (rVCSS), and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ). <i>Results:</i> A total of 132 limbs were treated (n=72 RFA; n=60 MOCA). Baseline demographics and clinical severity were comparable between groups. At 5 years, freedom from recanalization rate was significantly higher in the RFA group compared to the MOCA group (91.7% vs 66%; p=.0014). Clinical recurrence rates at 5 years were 11.7% for RFA and 22% for MOCA (p=.0023), while freedom from reintervention rates were 93.3% and 72.7%, respectively (p=.0011). Although both groups showed clinical improvement over time, patients treated with MOCA exhibited a significant worsening in rVCSS and AVVQ at 3 and 5 years compared to the RFA group (p<.0001). <i>Conclusions:</i> RFA demonstrates greater long-term stability, lower recurrence and reintervention rates compared to MOCA, suggesting it may be a preferable option for SSV insufficiency treatment in terms of durability and patient outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":23528,"journal":{"name":"Vasa-european Journal of Vascular Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vasa-european Journal of Vascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1024/0301-1526/a001261","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) have emerged as less invasive alternatives to traditional surgical interventions, offering reduced recovery times and comparable efficacy. This study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes between RFA and MOCA in treating SSV insufficiency. Materials and methods: this is a retrospective, nonrandomized study that involved patients who underwent either RFA or MOCA between 2015 to 2019. Data collected included demographics, clinical grading, procedural specifics, and follow-up outcomes. The primary endpoint was the comparison of freedom from recanalization and freedom from reinterventions rates, while secondary endpoints focused on recurrences rates and clinical outcomes assessed by revised clinical severity score (rVCSS), and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ). Results: A total of 132 limbs were treated (n=72 RFA; n=60 MOCA). Baseline demographics and clinical severity were comparable between groups. At 5 years, freedom from recanalization rate was significantly higher in the RFA group compared to the MOCA group (91.7% vs 66%; p=.0014). Clinical recurrence rates at 5 years were 11.7% for RFA and 22% for MOCA (p=.0023), while freedom from reintervention rates were 93.3% and 72.7%, respectively (p=.0011). Although both groups showed clinical improvement over time, patients treated with MOCA exhibited a significant worsening in rVCSS and AVVQ at 3 and 5 years compared to the RFA group (p<.0001). Conclusions: RFA demonstrates greater long-term stability, lower recurrence and reintervention rates compared to MOCA, suggesting it may be a preferable option for SSV insufficiency treatment in terms of durability and patient outcome.

射频与机械化学消融治疗小隐静脉功能不全。
背景:射频消融(RFA)和机械化学消融(MOCA)已经成为传统手术干预的侵入性更小的替代方案,提供更短的恢复时间和相当的疗效。本研究旨在比较RFA和MOCA治疗SSV功能不全的疗效、安全性和患者报告的结果。材料和方法:这是一项回顾性、非随机研究,涉及2015年至2019年间接受RFA或MOCA的患者。收集的数据包括人口统计学、临床分级、手术细节和随访结果。主要终点是无再通和无再干预率的比较,而次要终点集中于复发率和临床结果,通过修订的临床严重程度评分(rVCSS)和阿伯丁静脉曲张问卷(AVVQ)评估。结果:共治疗肢体132例(RFA 72例,MOCA 60例)。基线人口统计学和临床严重程度组间具有可比性。5年时,RFA组的再通通畅率明显高于MOCA组(91.7% vs 66%; p= 0.0014)。5年临床复发率RFA为11.7%,MOCA为22% (p= 0.0023),无再干预率分别为93.3%和72.7% (p= 0.0011)。尽管两组均表现出临床改善,但与RFA组相比,MOCA治疗的患者在3年和5年的rVCSS和AVVQ明显恶化(结论:与MOCA相比,RFA表现出更大的长期稳定性,更低的复发率和再干预率,表明就耐久性和患者预后而言,RFA可能是SSV功能不全治疗的首选选择。
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
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
61
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Vasa is the European journal of vascular medicine. It is the official organ of the German, Swiss, and Slovenian Societies of Angiology. The journal publishes original research articles, case reports and reviews on vascular biology, epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis, medical treatment and interventions for diseases of the arterial circulation, in the field of phlebology and lymphology including the microcirculation, except the cardiac circulation. Vasa combines basic science with clinical medicine making it relevant to all physicians interested in the whole vascular field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书