No abstract

Objective This report aims to present the early results of a retrospective study of the use of N-butyl cyanoacrylate (VariClose®)-based non-tumescent endovenous ablation for the treatment of patients with varicose veins. Method One hundred and eighty patients with varicose veins due to incompetent saphenous veins were treated with the VariClose® endovenous ablation method between May 2014 and November 2014. The patient sample consisted of 86 men and 94 women, with a mean age of 47.7 ± 11.7 years. The patients had a great saphenous vein diameter greater than 5.5 mm and a small saphenous vein diameter greater than 4 mm in conjunction with reflux for more than 0.5 s. Patients with varicose veins were evaluated with venous duplex examination, Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical and Pathophysiological classification (CEAP), and their Venous Clinical Severity Scores were recorded. Results The median CEAP score of patients was three, and the saphenous vein diameters were between 5.5 and 14 mm (mean of 7.7 ± 2.1 mm). A percutaneous entry was made under local anesthesia to the great saphenous vein in 169 patients and to the small saphenous vein in 11 patients. Duplex examination immediately after the procedure showed closure of the treated vein in 100% of the treated segment. No complications were observed. The mean follow-up time was 5.5 months (ranging from three to seven months). Recanalization was not observed in any of the patients during follow-up. The average Venous Clinical Severity Scores was 10.2 before the procedure and decreased to 3.9 after three months (p < 0.001). Conclusion The application of N-butyl cyanoacrylate (VariClose®) is an effective method for treating varicose veins; it yielded a high endovenous closure rate, with no need for tumescent anesthesia. However, long-term results are currently unknown.

Introduction: To compare endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in different legs in the same individual in patients with venous insufficiency. Methods: Sixty patients with bilateral saphenous vein insufficiency were included. EVLA or RFA was applied to one of the patient's legs and RFA or EVLA to the other leg. Results: EVLA and RFA complications were hyperemia at 20.7% and 31.0%, ecchymosis at 31.0% and 51.7% and edema at 27.6% and 65.5%, respectively. The rate of recanalization was 6.8% in the RFA group. No recanalization was observed in EVLA group. The level of patients satisfied with EVLA was 51.7%, compared to 31.0% for RFA, while 17.2% of patients were satisfied with both procedures. Times to return to daily activity were 0.9 days in the EVLA group and 1.3 days in the RFA group. Conclusion: EVLA procedure may be superior to RFA in certain respects.

No abstract

The EVLA procedure may be superior to RFA in certain respects.