{"title":"现代开放手术和吸热消融后的PREVAIT:一项系统综述。","authors":"Mariana Miranda, Joel Sousa, Armando Mansilha","doi":"10.23736/S0392-9590.23.05082-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Presence of varices after operative treatment (PREVAIT) is a common finding after varicose vein surgery, and has been shown to significantly reduce the quality of life of those it affects. As such, long-term results after varicose vein interventions have to be taken into account when choosing a technique. This study aims to systematically review current evidence on the recurrence of varicose veins after three different techniques: conventional surgery (HLS), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA).</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A literature search was performed on the PubMed and Web of Science databases, which returned 546 studies. Fourteen studies were included. Data were extracted using predefined forms.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>A total of 2795 patients were included, for a total of 3056 legs treated. 503 legs (16.5%) were treated by HLS, 1791 (58.6%) by EVLA and 762 (25.0%) by RFA. PREVAIT was reported in 34.4% for patients treated by HLS, for a mean follow-up comprised between 18 months and 5 years; 16.6% by EVLA, for a mean follow-up between 112 days and 5 years and 6.7% of those treated by RFA, for a mean follow-up between 106 days and 5 years. Regarding patterns of recurrence, the development of new varicose veins was the most commonly reported mechanism of recurrence after HLS (range: 29.8-91%) and EVLA (range: 40-81.6%), but not RFA, where recanalization of the occluded saphenous trunk accounted for up to 67.0% of the cases. Only one study reported quality of life related recurrence, and included patients treated by HLS and EVLA, but not RFA. Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) score, physical functioning domains of the SF-36 score and patient satisfaction were significantly worse in patients with clinical recurrence. Re-intervention rates after recurrence were reported in 5 studies, ranging between 7.7% and 37.7% for HLS and 0-57.0% for EVLA. Only one study reported data on re-intervention for RFA patients, which was 6.67%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recurrence is a reliable indicator of long-term efficacy of a varicose vein treatment and appears to occur more frequently after HLS. Although there are several mechanisms of recurrence, the development of new varicose veins was the most commonly observed. There is clear heterogeneity among definitions of recurrence and follow-up periods in literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":13709,"journal":{"name":"International Angiology","volume":" ","pages":"436-447"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PREVAIT after modern open surgery and endothermal ablation: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Mariana Miranda, Joel Sousa, Armando Mansilha\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0392-9590.23.05082-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Presence of varices after operative treatment (PREVAIT) is a common finding after varicose vein surgery, and has been shown to significantly reduce the quality of life of those it affects. As such, long-term results after varicose vein interventions have to be taken into account when choosing a technique. This study aims to systematically review current evidence on the recurrence of varicose veins after three different techniques: conventional surgery (HLS), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA).</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A literature search was performed on the PubMed and Web of Science databases, which returned 546 studies. Fourteen studies were included. Data were extracted using predefined forms.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>A total of 2795 patients were included, for a total of 3056 legs treated. 503 legs (16.5%) were treated by HLS, 1791 (58.6%) by EVLA and 762 (25.0%) by RFA. PREVAIT was reported in 34.4% for patients treated by HLS, for a mean follow-up comprised between 18 months and 5 years; 16.6% by EVLA, for a mean follow-up between 112 days and 5 years and 6.7% of those treated by RFA, for a mean follow-up between 106 days and 5 years. Regarding patterns of recurrence, the development of new varicose veins was the most commonly reported mechanism of recurrence after HLS (range: 29.8-91%) and EVLA (range: 40-81.6%), but not RFA, where recanalization of the occluded saphenous trunk accounted for up to 67.0% of the cases. Only one study reported quality of life related recurrence, and included patients treated by HLS and EVLA, but not RFA. Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) score, physical functioning domains of the SF-36 score and patient satisfaction were significantly worse in patients with clinical recurrence. Re-intervention rates after recurrence were reported in 5 studies, ranging between 7.7% and 37.7% for HLS and 0-57.0% for EVLA. Only one study reported data on re-intervention for RFA patients, which was 6.67%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recurrence is a reliable indicator of long-term efficacy of a varicose vein treatment and appears to occur more frequently after HLS. Although there are several mechanisms of recurrence, the development of new varicose veins was the most commonly observed. There is clear heterogeneity among definitions of recurrence and follow-up periods in literature.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13709,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Angiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"436-447\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Angiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0392-9590.23.05082-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Angiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0392-9590.23.05082-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
引言:手术治疗后出现静脉曲张(PREVAIT)是静脉曲张手术后的常见发现,已被证明会显著降低患者的生活质量。因此,在选择技术时,必须考虑静脉曲张干预后的长期结果。本研究旨在系统回顾三种不同技术后静脉曲张复发的现有证据:常规手术(HLS)、静脉内激光消融(EVLA)和射频消融(RFA)。证据获取:在PubMed和Web of Science数据库上进行文献检索,共返回546项研究。包括14项研究。使用预定义的表格提取数据。证据综合:共包括2795名患者,共治疗3056条腿。HLS治疗503条腿(16.5%),EVLA治疗1791条腿(58.6%),RFA治疗762条腿(25.0%)。在接受HLS治疗的患者中,有34.4%的患者报告了PREWAIT,平均随访时间为18个月至5年;平均随访112天至5年的EVLA组为16.6%,RFA组为6.7%,平均随访106天至5年间。关于复发模式,新静脉曲张的发展是HLS(范围:29.8-91%)和EVLA(范围:40-81.6%)后最常见的复发机制,但不是RFA,其中闭塞的大隐干再通占病例的67.0%。只有一项研究报告了与生活质量相关的复发,包括接受HLS和EVLA治疗的患者,但不包括RFA。临床复发患者的Aberdeen静脉曲张问卷(AVVQ)评分、SF-36评分的身体功能域和患者满意度显著较差。5项研究报告了复发后的再干预率,HLS为7.7%-37.7%,EVLA为0-57.0%。只有一项研究报告了RFA患者的再干预数据,占6.67%。结论:复发是静脉曲张治疗长期疗效的可靠指标,在HLS后似乎更频繁发生。尽管有几种复发机制,但最常见的是新静脉曲张的发展。文献中对复发和随访期的定义存在明显的异质性。
PREVAIT after modern open surgery and endothermal ablation: a systematic review.
Introduction: Presence of varices after operative treatment (PREVAIT) is a common finding after varicose vein surgery, and has been shown to significantly reduce the quality of life of those it affects. As such, long-term results after varicose vein interventions have to be taken into account when choosing a technique. This study aims to systematically review current evidence on the recurrence of varicose veins after three different techniques: conventional surgery (HLS), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA).
Evidence acquisition: A literature search was performed on the PubMed and Web of Science databases, which returned 546 studies. Fourteen studies were included. Data were extracted using predefined forms.
Evidence synthesis: A total of 2795 patients were included, for a total of 3056 legs treated. 503 legs (16.5%) were treated by HLS, 1791 (58.6%) by EVLA and 762 (25.0%) by RFA. PREVAIT was reported in 34.4% for patients treated by HLS, for a mean follow-up comprised between 18 months and 5 years; 16.6% by EVLA, for a mean follow-up between 112 days and 5 years and 6.7% of those treated by RFA, for a mean follow-up between 106 days and 5 years. Regarding patterns of recurrence, the development of new varicose veins was the most commonly reported mechanism of recurrence after HLS (range: 29.8-91%) and EVLA (range: 40-81.6%), but not RFA, where recanalization of the occluded saphenous trunk accounted for up to 67.0% of the cases. Only one study reported quality of life related recurrence, and included patients treated by HLS and EVLA, but not RFA. Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) score, physical functioning domains of the SF-36 score and patient satisfaction were significantly worse in patients with clinical recurrence. Re-intervention rates after recurrence were reported in 5 studies, ranging between 7.7% and 37.7% for HLS and 0-57.0% for EVLA. Only one study reported data on re-intervention for RFA patients, which was 6.67%.
Conclusions: Recurrence is a reliable indicator of long-term efficacy of a varicose vein treatment and appears to occur more frequently after HLS. Although there are several mechanisms of recurrence, the development of new varicose veins was the most commonly observed. There is clear heterogeneity among definitions of recurrence and follow-up periods in literature.
期刊介绍:
International Angiology publishes scientific papers on angiology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work. Duties and responsibilities of all the subjects involved in the editorial process are summarized at Publication ethics. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).