5-YEAR CLINICAL RESULTS OF 1073 PATIENTS WITH VARICOSE VEINS TREATED USING RADIOFREQUENCY ABLATION, ENDOVENOUS LASER ABLATION AND CYANOACRYLATE EMBOLISATION
Abstract
Background: There is little research on the long-term outcomes of radiofrequency ablation, endovenous laser ablation, and cyanoacrylate embolization. This study retrospectively examined the clinical results of radiofrequency ablation, endovenous laser ablation, and cyanoacrylate embolization methods.
Materials and Methods: The population of the study consisted of 1256 patients who applied to the clinic with the diagnosis of chronic venous insufficiency between the specified dates and were treated with endovenous varicose veins. Sample: 431 patients in the cyanoacrylate embolization group, 230 patients in the radiofrequency ablation group, 412 patients in the endovenous laser ablation group, a total of 1073 patients. Bilateral cyanoacrylate embolization, radiofrequency ablation, and endovenous laser ablation were not applied to the patients in the same session.
Results: When the 1-year occlusion rates were examined, it was determined as 97.57%, 98.26%, and 95.59% in the endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, and cyanoacrylate embolization groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in Venous Clinical Severity Score scores between the groups before and after the procedure. Pain, paresthesia, ecchymosis, pigmentation, induration, burn, deep vein thrombosis, and phlebitis were significantly more common in the endovenous laser ablation group.
Conclusions: Complications were seen in the cyanoacrylate embolization group. Endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, and cyanoacrylate embolization applications have similar long-term results. Therefore, cyanoacrylate embolization is recommended for chronic venous insufficiency patients who want to get rid of varicose veins and improve their quality of life.
References
1. Pannone A, Di Girolamo A, Orrico M, Mangialardi N. Outcome measures of in-office endovenous radiofrequency treatment of varicose vein feasibility. Diagnostics. 2023; 13(2):327. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13020327.
2. Mubarak S, Reffat S, Boulos M. Comparison of endovenous laser versus radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of primary long saphenous varicose veins. Suez Canal University Medical Journal. 2023; 26(1): 55-60. doi: 10.21608/scumj.2023.284235
3. Eroglu E, Yasim A. A randomised clinical trial comparing n-butyl cyanoacrylate, radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation for the treatment of superficial venous ıncompetence: two year follow up results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;56(4):553-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.05.028.
4. Altin FH, Aydin S, Erkoc K, Gunes T, Eygi B, Kutas BH. Endovenous laser ablation for saphenous vein insufficiency: short- and mid-term results of 230 procedures. Vascular. 2015;23(1):3-8. doi: 10.1177/1708538114522997.
5. Tural K, Ergüneş K. The efficacy of endovenously cyanoacrylate adhesive for the treatment of great saphenous vein insufficiency and mid-term follow-up results. Turkish Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2021;30(1):49-55.doi: 10.9739/tjvs.2021.848
6. Güven C. Use of cyanoacrylate in venous insufficiency and varies treatement and its results. Fırat University Medical Journal of Health Sciences. 2020;34(1):7-11.
7. Özçalışkan Ö, Arslanoğlu Y, Deniz H, Gökaslan G, Güzel G, Yasim A, et al. Early and mid term results of our 120 patients treated with endovenous ablation techniques in terms of deep venous thrombosis and clinical improvement. Turkish Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2012;21(3):263-8. doi:10.9739/uvcd.2011-27908
8. Lurie F, Passman M, Meisner M, Dalsing M, Masuda E, Welch H, et al. The 2020 update of the CEAP classification system and reporting standards. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2020;8(3):342-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2019.12.075.
9. Kakkos SK, Rivera MA, Matsagas MI, Lazarides MK, Robless PA, Belcaro G, et al. Validation of the new venous severity scoring system in varicose vein surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38(2):224-8. doi: 10.1016/s0741-5214(03)00323-9.
10. Koramaz İ, El Kılıç H, Gökalp F, Bitargil M, Bektaş N, Engin E, et al. Ablation of the great saphenous vein with nontumescent n-butyl cyanoacrylate versus endovenous laser therapy. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2017;5(2):210-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2016.09.007.
11. Yalçın M, Gödekmerdan E, Kaptanı Derya T, Koç A. Early and midterm results of our 585 patients that underwent endovenous ablation therapy. Turkish Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2016;25(1): 24-30. doi: 10.9739/uvcd.2016-51902
12. Gücü A, Erdolu B, Ay D, Toktaş F, Eriş C, Vural AH et al. The evaluation of patient satisfaction with visual analog scale after treatment of varicosities with endovenous laser ablation: case series. Turkish Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2014;23(1):29-33.doi: 10.9739/uvcd.2013-38402
13. Morrison N, Gibson K, McEnroe S, Goldman M, King T, Weiss R, et al. Randomized trial comparing cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation for incompetent great saphenous veins (VeClose). J Vasc Surg. 2015;61(4):985-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.11.071.
14. El Kilic H, Bektas N, Bitargil M, Balkaya IA, Demir T, Koramaz I. Long-term outcomes of endovenous laser ablation, n-butyl cyanoacrylate and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of chronic venous ınsufficiency. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2022;10(4);865-71. doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2021.10.009.
15. Yang GK, Parapini M, Gagnon J, Chen JC. Comparison of cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of varicose veins. Phlebology. 2019;34(4):278-83. doi:10.1177/0268355518794105.
16. Ovalı C, Sevin MB. Twelve-month efficacy and complications of cyanoacrylate embolization compared with radiofrequency ablation for incompetent great saphenous veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2019;7(2):210-6.doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2018.10.019.
17. Morrison N, Kolluri R, Vasquez M, Madsen M, Jones A, Gibson K. Comparison of cyanoacrylate closure and radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of incompetent great saphenous veins: 36-Month outcomes of the VeClose randomized controlled trial. Phlebology. 2019;34(6):380-90. doi: 10.1177/0268355518810259.
18. Almeida JI, Javier JJ, Mackay EG, Bautista C, Cher DJ, Proebstle TM. Thirty-sixth-month follow-up of first-in-human use of cyanoacrylate adhesive for treatment of saphenous vein incompetence. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2017;5(5):658-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2017.03.016.
19. Lawaetz M, Serup J, Lawaetz B, Bjoern L, Blemings A, Eklof B, et al. Comparison of endovenous ablation techniques, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Extended 5-year follow-up of a RCT. Int Angiol. 2017;36(3):281-8. doi: 10.23736/S0392-9590.17.03827-5.
20. Ay Y, Gunes E, Turkkolu ST, Selcuk E, Calim M, Akal R, et al. Comparative efficacy and life quality effects of surgical stripping, radiofrequency ablation, and cyanoacrylate embolization in patients undergoing treatment for great saphenous vein insufficiency. Phlebology. 2021;36(1):54-62. doi: 10.1177/0268355520947292.
21. Morrison N, Gibson K, Vasquez M, Weiss R, Jones A. Five-year extension study of patients from a randomized clinical trial (VeClose) comparing cyanoacrylate closure versus radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of incompetent great saphenous veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2020;8(6):978-89. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2019.12.080.
22. Chen M, Mou S, Dai G, Hu J. Comparison between cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation for superficial venous incompetence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dermatol Surg. 2021;47(8):e214-e219. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000003061.
23. Proebstle TM, Alm J, Dimitri S, Rasmussen L, Whiteley M, Lawson J, et al. The European multicenter cohort study on cyanoacrylate embolization of refluxing great saphenous veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2015;3(1):2-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2014.09.001.
24. Balcı AB, Sanrı US, Özsin KK, Tatlı AB, Özyazıcıoğlu AF, Yavuz Ş. Early period results of radiofrequency ablation and cyanoacrylate embolization for great saphenous vein insufficiency. Vascular. 2022;30(4):771-8. doi:10.1177/17085381211026154
25. García-Carpintero E, Carmona M, Chalco-Orrego JP, González-Enríquez J, Imaz-Iglesia I. Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovenous cyanoacrylate adhesive ablation for incompetent saphenous veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2020;8(2):287-96. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2019.09.010.
26. Poulose D, Deo K, Gogineni JM, Mahajan A, Lote S, Mishra R, et al. Correlation of venous clinical severity score with dermatology life quality index among patients with chronic venous insufficiency: a cross-sectional study. Cureus. 2021;13(9):e17654. doi: 10.7759/cureus.17654.
Copyright (c) 2023 Sanamed
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Journal Sanamed is published under an Open Access license. All its content is available free of charge. Users can read, download, copy, distribute, print, search the full text of articles, as well as establish HTML links to them, without having to seek the consent of the author or publisher.
The right to use content without consent does not release the users from the obligation to give the credit to the journal and its content in a manner described under CC BY.