Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review shows high occlusion rates for thermal methods in varicose veins, suggesting they improve life quality.
Aims Varicose veins affect 17% of females and 15% of males globally, significantly impairing quality of life. Endovenous ablation techniques, including thermal methods such as Endovenous Laser Ablation (EVLA) and Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA), as well as non-thermal approaches like Mechanochemical Ablation (MOCA) and cyanoacrylate adhesive, offer minimally invasive alternatives to traditional surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of these interventions. Methods We conducted a systematic search that identified 35 studies with more than 6,500 patients. Primary outcomes included occlusion and recurrence rates. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported improvements using the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) and Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) and adverse events. The analysis followed PRISMA guidelines with a random-effects model used for the data synthesis. Results EVLA and RFA achieved high occlusion rates of 94.9% and 94.4%, respectively, comparable to surgical stripping at 92.0%. Slightly lower rates were observed for non-thermal methods at 88.7%, but these reduced post-procedural pain (MOCA: 1.2/10 vs EVLA: 3.8/10). Average recurrences were similar across methods at 6.2%. Improvements in AVVQ scores by 7.8 points and VCSS scores by 3.5 points reflect a quality-of-life gain. Adverse events such as superficial thrombophlebitis and skin burns were more common following thermal methods (6.8%) than non-thermal approaches (<2.5%). Conclusion Endovenous ablation techniques are valid and safe alternatives to surgery, showing high success rates with significant quality-of-life improvements. Non-thermal procedures offer less complications and less post-operative pain, making them attractive options. Long-term studies are warranted to confirm the durability of these techniques.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lim et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: