Hak Hong Keo, Karoline Gondek, Nicolas Diehm, Christoph Leib, Heiko Uthoff, Rolf P Engelberger, Daniel Staub
{"title":"1940 纳米与 1470 纳米波长激光的并发症发生率。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Complication rate with the 1940-nm versus 1470-nm wavelength laser.
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.