2015
DOI: 10.1590/1677-5449.20140060
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Radiofrequency thermal ablation versus conventional saphenectomy

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Varicose veins of the lower limbs have a high prevalence worldwide. New treatment techniques have been developed with the objectives of improving patients' quality of life and reducing recovery times. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patients with incompetent saphenous veins treated using conventional saphenectomy or radiofrequency ablation (RF), in terms of postoperative status. METHODS: From May 2012 to April 2013 146 varicose veins patients with saphenous insufficiency, 90 of whom were treated with conven… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 23 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Toregeani JF et al; conducted a study from May 2012 to April 2013 146 varicose veins patients with saphenous insufficiency, 90 of whom were treated with conventional surgery (G1) and 56 with RF ablation (G2), were evaluated prospectively. 8 In G1, 88.61% of patients complained of postoperative pain and needed to take analgesics, compared with 28.85% in G2 (p<0.05). Mean pain rating on an analog scale from 0 to 10 was 3.91±2.13 points for G1 and 1.76±3.01 points for G2 (p<0.05).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Toregeani JF et al; conducted a study from May 2012 to April 2013 146 varicose veins patients with saphenous insufficiency, 90 of whom were treated with conventional surgery (G1) and 56 with RF ablation (G2), were evaluated prospectively. 8 In G1, 88.61% of patients complained of postoperative pain and needed to take analgesics, compared with 28.85% in G2 (p<0.05). Mean pain rating on an analog scale from 0 to 10 was 3.91±2.13 points for G1 and 1.76±3.01 points for G2 (p<0.05).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%