Comparison of Radiofrequency Ablation and Saphenous Vein Stripping for the Treatment of Recurrent Lower Extremity Venous Insufficiency.

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-26 DOI:10.1177/15385744231173192
Eyup Murat Kanber, Hakkı Kursat Cetin
{"title":"Comparison of Radiofrequency Ablation and Saphenous Vein Stripping for the Treatment of Recurrent Lower Extremity Venous Insufficiency.","authors":"Eyup Murat Kanber,&nbsp;Hakkı Kursat Cetin","doi":"10.1177/15385744231173192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficiency and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and saphenous vein stripping (SVS) for the treatment of recurrent lower extremity chronic superficial venous insufficiency (CSVI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent SVS and RFA for recurrent lower extremity CSVI following RFA and patients who had 2-year follow-up results were enrolled into the study. Total, 37 patients who underwent a second RFA session with 2-year follow-up results were available. Then 37 patients were selected from 88 patients who underwent SVS for recurrent lower extremity CSVI to achieve a 1:1 ratio for comparison. Groups were compared based on preoperative properties, operative parameters, postoperative outcomes, complications and follow-up results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Duration of the procedure was 20.7 minutes in the RFA group and 30.7 minutes in the SVS group (P = .001). Postoperative pain at first hour, sixth hour and 24<sup>th</sup> hour were significantly lower in patients who underwent RF (P = .001 for each parameter). Moreover, hospitalization time (18.1 hours vs 24.6 hours, P = .001) and time to return to normal daily activities (1.6 days and 2.5 days, P = .001) were significantly shorter in the RFA group. Success of the procedure did not statistically significant at first year follow-up (P = .304). However, success was significantly higher for the SVS group at second year follow-up (73% for RFA group and 91.9% for SVS group, P = .032).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We achieved significantly shorter procedure time, less postoperative hospitalization time, and a shorter time to return to daily activities with RFA. In contrast, the success rate of SVS was significantly higher at the second year follow-up, but not the first year follow-up in comparison with RFA.</p>","PeriodicalId":23530,"journal":{"name":"Vascular and Endovascular Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular and Endovascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15385744231173192","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficiency and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and saphenous vein stripping (SVS) for the treatment of recurrent lower extremity chronic superficial venous insufficiency (CSVI).

Methods: Patients who underwent SVS and RFA for recurrent lower extremity CSVI following RFA and patients who had 2-year follow-up results were enrolled into the study. Total, 37 patients who underwent a second RFA session with 2-year follow-up results were available. Then 37 patients were selected from 88 patients who underwent SVS for recurrent lower extremity CSVI to achieve a 1:1 ratio for comparison. Groups were compared based on preoperative properties, operative parameters, postoperative outcomes, complications and follow-up results.

Results: Duration of the procedure was 20.7 minutes in the RFA group and 30.7 minutes in the SVS group (P = .001). Postoperative pain at first hour, sixth hour and 24th hour were significantly lower in patients who underwent RF (P = .001 for each parameter). Moreover, hospitalization time (18.1 hours vs 24.6 hours, P = .001) and time to return to normal daily activities (1.6 days and 2.5 days, P = .001) were significantly shorter in the RFA group. Success of the procedure did not statistically significant at first year follow-up (P = .304). However, success was significantly higher for the SVS group at second year follow-up (73% for RFA group and 91.9% for SVS group, P = .032).

Conclusion: We achieved significantly shorter procedure time, less postoperative hospitalization time, and a shorter time to return to daily activities with RFA. In contrast, the success rate of SVS was significantly higher at the second year follow-up, but not the first year follow-up in comparison with RFA.

射频消融与隐静脉剥离治疗复发性下肢静脉功能不全的比较。
目的:比较射频消融术(RFA)和隐静脉剥离术(SVS)治疗复发性下肢慢性浅静脉功能不全(CSVI)的有效性和安全性。总共有37名患者接受了第二次RFA治疗,并获得了2年的随访结果。然后从88名接受SVS治疗复发性下肢CSVI的患者中选择37名患者,以达到1:1的比例进行比较。根据术前特点、手术参数、术后结果、并发症和随访结果对各组进行比较。结果:RFA组和SVS组的手术持续时间分别为20.7分钟和30.7分钟(P=0.001)。接受RF的患者术后第一小时、第六小时和第二十四小时的疼痛显著降低(每个参数P=0.001)。此外,RFA组的住院时间(18.1小时vs 24.6小时,P=.001)和恢复正常日常活动的时间(1.6天和2.5天,P=0.001)显著缩短。在第一年随访时,该手术的成功率没有统计学意义(P=.304)。然而,SVS组在第二年随访时的成功率明显更高(RFA组为73%,SVS小组为91.9%,P=.032)。结论:RFA显著缩短了手术时间,减少了术后住院时间,缩短了恢复日常活动的时间。相反,与RFA相比,SVS的成功率在第二年随访时显著较高,但在第一年随访时没有。
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
Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
Vascular and Endovascular Surgery SURGERY-PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
11.10%
发文量
132
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (VES) is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes information to guide vascular specialists in endovascular, surgical, and medical treatment of vascular disease. VES contains original scientific articles on vascular intervention, including new endovascular therapies for peripheral artery, aneurysm, carotid, and venous conditions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
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