The clinical outcomes of endovenous microwave ablation and radiofrequency ablation for great saphenous varicose veins
10.3760/cma.j.cn113855-20230507-00229
- VernacularTitle:腔内微波消融与射频消融治疗大隐静脉曲张的对比研究
- Author:
Zhiyong CHEN
1
;
Long WANG
;
Huan OUYANG
;
Xianyu HU
;
Yuan HONG
;
Bo LIU
;
Yi LIU
;
Xu ZHANG
;
Binshan ZHA
Author Information
1. 安徽医科大学第一附属医院普外科血管外科病区，合肥 230022
- Keywords:
Varicose veins;
Ablation;
Endovenous heat induced thrombosis
- From:
Chinese Journal of General Surgery
2023;38(10):765-771
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the efficacy of intraluminal microwave ablation with radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of varicose veins of the lower extremities.Methods:The clinical data of 520 patients (522 affected limbs) who underwent lower extremity varicose vein surgery at the Department of Vascular Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from Jun 2021 to Sep 2022 were collected. Patients were divided into endovenous microwave ablation group (EMWA group, n = 201) and radiofrequency ablation group (RFA group, n = 321). Follow-up was performed at 1 week, 1 , 6 and 12 months after surgery. The primary efficacy endpoint was the occlusion rate of the treated segment vein, the primary safety endpoint was the incidence of surgery-related and/or device-related complications, and the secondary endpoints were the venous clinical severity score (VCSS) and chronic venous insufficiency quality of life questionnaire (CIVIQ) scores at follow-up. Results:The technique success rate and the occlusion rate of the affected segment vein was 100% in both groups evaluated one week after surgery; Six and 12 months after surgery, the occlusion rate in the RFA group was 98.9%, and that in the EMWA group was 99.3% and respectively 97.8%, 97.2% ,without statically significant difference.During the follow-up period, there were no cases of reoperation due to vein recanalization. no serious events such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism or death occurred in either group. The incidence of adverse events (induration, ecchymosis, skin burn, incision infection, limb numbness, hematoma, thrombotic superficial phlebitis, endovenous heat induced thrombosis, etc.) in both groups was compared, and the difference was not statistically significant. VCSS and CIVIQ scores improved significantly in both groups at 1 ,6 and 12 months after treatment, and the difference was statistically significant(all P < 0.01). Conclusion:EMWA and RFA have the advantages of simple operation, good clinical efficacy and high degree of improvement in quality of life.
