{"title":"氰基丙烯酸酯封闭与射频消融治疗隐静脉曲张的临床结果:一项单中心回顾性研究。","authors":"Yuki Kamikawa, Takeshi Kinoshita, Yosuke Saito, Tetsuma Oyama, Minoru Tabata, Hirotaka Inaba","doi":"10.1155/ijvm/9668464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Varicose veins are a common condition affecting millions worldwide. Cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are widely used minimally invasive treatments. CAC offers advantages such as eliminating tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) and reducing nerve injury risk. However, there are few reports comparing CAC and RFA outcomes in Japan. This study is aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of CAC and RFA for treating great saphenous vein (GSV) and small saphenous vein (SSV) varicose veins. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> A retrospective, single-center study was conducted with 157 patients (178 limbs) who underwent either CAC (<i>n</i> = 96) or RFA (<i>n</i> = 82) from January 2020 to October 2023. Postoperative occlusion rates, complications, and risk factors for phlebitis were analyzed. Follow-up ultrasound examinations were conducted at up to 3 months postoperatively. Statistical analyses included <i>t</i>-tests, Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> tests, and multivariate logistic regression. <b>Results:</b> Both CAC and RFA achieved a 100% occlusion rate at 3 months. In the CAC group, significantly longer vein segments were treated compared to those in the RFA group (46 ± 14 cm vs. 35 ± 13 cm, <i>p</i> < 0.05). However, phlebitis occurred in 15% of the CAC group, whereas none were reported in the RFA group (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Multivariate analysis identified preoperative swelling (OR: 5.60, 95% CI: 1.33-23.6, <i>p</i> < 0.05) and treated vein length as independent risk factors for phlebitis. All phlebitis cases resolved with conservative treatment. One patient in the RFA group experienced transient paresthesia. <b>Conclusion:</b> CAC is a viable alternative to RFA, demonstrated equivalent occlusion rates, though CAC exhibited a higher incidence of phlebitis. Careful patient selection and perioperative management may help mitigate risks. Further studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up are needed to optimize treatment protocols and long-term outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":14448,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vascular Medicine","volume":"2025 ","pages":"9668464"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12140822/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Outcomes of Cyanoacrylate Closure Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Saphenous Varicose Veins: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.\",\"authors\":\"Yuki Kamikawa, Takeshi Kinoshita, Yosuke Saito, Tetsuma Oyama, Minoru Tabata, Hirotaka Inaba\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/ijvm/9668464\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Varicose veins are a common condition affecting millions worldwide. Cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are widely used minimally invasive treatments. CAC offers advantages such as eliminating tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) and reducing nerve injury risk. However, there are few reports comparing CAC and RFA outcomes in Japan. This study is aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of CAC and RFA for treating great saphenous vein (GSV) and small saphenous vein (SSV) varicose veins. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> A retrospective, single-center study was conducted with 157 patients (178 limbs) who underwent either CAC (<i>n</i> = 96) or RFA (<i>n</i> = 82) from January 2020 to October 2023. Postoperative occlusion rates, complications, and risk factors for phlebitis were analyzed. Follow-up ultrasound examinations were conducted at up to 3 months postoperatively. Statistical analyses included <i>t</i>-tests, Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> tests, and multivariate logistic regression. <b>Results:</b> Both CAC and RFA achieved a 100% occlusion rate at 3 months. In the CAC group, significantly longer vein segments were treated compared to those in the RFA group (46 ± 14 cm vs. 35 ± 13 cm, <i>p</i> < 0.05). However, phlebitis occurred in 15% of the CAC group, whereas none were reported in the RFA group (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Multivariate analysis identified preoperative swelling (OR: 5.60, 95% CI: 1.33-23.6, <i>p</i> < 0.05) and treated vein length as independent risk factors for phlebitis. All phlebitis cases resolved with conservative treatment. One patient in the RFA group experienced transient paresthesia. <b>Conclusion:</b> CAC is a viable alternative to RFA, demonstrated equivalent occlusion rates, though CAC exhibited a higher incidence of phlebitis. Careful patient selection and perioperative management may help mitigate risks. Further studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up are needed to optimize treatment protocols and long-term outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14448,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Vascular Medicine\",\"volume\":\"2025 \",\"pages\":\"9668464\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12140822/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Vascular Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/ijvm/9668464\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Vascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/ijvm/9668464","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
简介:静脉曲张是一种影响全球数百万人的常见疾病。氰基丙烯酸酯闭合(CAC)和射频消融(RFA)是广泛应用的微创治疗方法。CAC具有消除肿胀局部麻醉(TLA)和降低神经损伤风险等优点。然而,在日本很少有比较CAC和RFA结果的报道。本研究旨在评价CAC和RFA治疗大隐静脉(GSV)和小隐静脉(SSV)静脉曲张的疗效和安全性。材料和方法:2020年1月至2023年10月,对157例(178条肢体)接受CAC (n = 96)或RFA (n = 82)的患者进行了回顾性单中心研究。分析静脉炎术后闭塞率、并发症及危险因素。术后3个月进行随访超声检查。统计分析包括t检验、Mann-Whitney U检验和多元逻辑回归。结果:CAC和RFA均在3个月时达到100%的闭塞率。与RFA组相比,CAC组治疗的静脉段明显更长(46±14 cm vs 35±13 cm, p < 0.05)。然而,15%的CAC组发生静脉炎,而RFA组没有报道(p < 0.05)。多因素分析发现术前肿胀(OR: 5.60, 95% CI: 1.33-23.6, p < 0.05)和静脉长度是静脉炎的独立危险因素。所有静脉炎病例均经保守治疗痊愈。RFA组有1例患者出现短暂性感觉异常。结论:CAC是一种可行的替代RFA,具有相同的闭塞率,尽管CAC表现出更高的静脉炎发生率。谨慎的患者选择和围手术期管理可能有助于降低风险。进一步的研究需要更大的队列和更长的随访时间来优化治疗方案和长期结果。
Clinical Outcomes of Cyanoacrylate Closure Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Saphenous Varicose Veins: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
Introduction: Varicose veins are a common condition affecting millions worldwide. Cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are widely used minimally invasive treatments. CAC offers advantages such as eliminating tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) and reducing nerve injury risk. However, there are few reports comparing CAC and RFA outcomes in Japan. This study is aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of CAC and RFA for treating great saphenous vein (GSV) and small saphenous vein (SSV) varicose veins. Materials and Methods: A retrospective, single-center study was conducted with 157 patients (178 limbs) who underwent either CAC (n = 96) or RFA (n = 82) from January 2020 to October 2023. Postoperative occlusion rates, complications, and risk factors for phlebitis were analyzed. Follow-up ultrasound examinations were conducted at up to 3 months postoperatively. Statistical analyses included t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and multivariate logistic regression. Results: Both CAC and RFA achieved a 100% occlusion rate at 3 months. In the CAC group, significantly longer vein segments were treated compared to those in the RFA group (46 ± 14 cm vs. 35 ± 13 cm, p < 0.05). However, phlebitis occurred in 15% of the CAC group, whereas none were reported in the RFA group (p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis identified preoperative swelling (OR: 5.60, 95% CI: 1.33-23.6, p < 0.05) and treated vein length as independent risk factors for phlebitis. All phlebitis cases resolved with conservative treatment. One patient in the RFA group experienced transient paresthesia. Conclusion: CAC is a viable alternative to RFA, demonstrated equivalent occlusion rates, though CAC exhibited a higher incidence of phlebitis. Careful patient selection and perioperative management may help mitigate risks. Further studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up are needed to optimize treatment protocols and long-term outcomes.