Long‐term outcomes of endovenous laser ablation and conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins. BJS 2018; 105: 1759-1767.
Published: 22nd August 2018
Authors: T. Wallace, J. El‐Sheikha, S. Nandhra, C. Leung, A. Mohamed, A. Harwood et al.
Clinical guidelines recommend endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) over surgery based on short‐term evidence, yet there are few studies reporting mid‐ to long‐term outcomes. The aim of this study was to report the 5‐year outcomes from an RCT of surgery versus EVLA for treatment of symptomatic great saphenous varicose veins.
Patients with symptomatic varicose veins due to great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence were followed up 5 years after enrolment in a randomized trial of either surgery (saphenofemoral junction ligation, GSV strip to the knee and multiple avulsions of varicosities) or EVLA plus multiple avulsions. Outcomes included: clinical recurrence, defined as new varicose veins greater than 3 mm in diameter; Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS); quality of life measured by means of Short Form 36, EuroQol Five Dimensions (EQ‐5D™) and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ); patient satisfaction; and duplex ultrasound examination (DUS) findings.
Some 218 of the 276 patients enrolled in the trial (79·0 per cent) were available for follow‐up. Clinical recurrence was more frequent following surgery than EVLA at 5 years (34·3 versus 20·9 per cent; P = 0·010). Both groups demonstrated sustained significant improvements at 5 years over baseline in VCSS (surgery: median (i.q.r.) 1 (0–2) from 4 (3‐5), P < 0·001; EVLA: 0 (0–1) from 4 (3‐5), P < 0·001), AVVQ (surgery: 4·59 (0·56–9·78) from 13·69 (9·81–18·11), P < 0·001; EVLA: 3·35 (0·17 to 6·55) from 12·73 (9·41–17·32), P < 0·001) and EQ‐5D™ (surgery: 1·000 (0·796–1·000) from 0·859 (0·796–1·000), P = 0·002; EVLA: 1·000 (0·796–1·000) from 0·808 (0·796–1·000), P = 0·002). VCSS was better for EVLA than surgery at 5 years (P = 0·031). Technical success assessed by DUS remained high at 5 years (85·4 per cent for surgery and 93·2 per cent for EVLA; P = 0·074). DUS‐detected anatomical patterns of recurrence differed between the groups.
EVLA was more effective than surgery in preventing clinical recurrence 5 years after treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. Patient‐reported outcome measures were similar. Registration number: NCT00759434 (
You may also be interested in
Meta‐analysis of long‐term survival after elective endovascular or open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.
Authors: R. M. A. Bulder, E. Bastiaannet, J. F. Hamming, J. H. N. Lindeman
Authors: D. C. Norvell, M. L. Thompson, E. J. Boyko, G. Landry, A. J. Littman, W. G. Henderson et al.
Meta‐analysis of clinical trials examining the benefit of structured home exercise in patients with peripheral artery disease. BJS 2019; 106: 319-331.
Authors: J. Golledge, T. P. Singh, C. Alahakoon, J. Pinchbeck, L. Yip, J. V. Moxon et al.
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of a randomized clinical trial of early versus deferred endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux in patients with venous ulceration.
Authors: D. M. Epstein, M. S. Gohel, F. Heatley, X. Liu, A. Bradbury, R. Bulbulia et al.
Meta‐analysis of negative pressure wound therapy of closed groin incisions in arterial surgery. BJS 2019; 106: 310-318.
Authors: R. Svensson‐Björk, M. Zarrouk, G. Asciutto, J. Hasselmann, S. Acosta
Cost‐effectiveness of targeted screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in siblings. BJS 2019; 106: 206-216.
Authors: R. Hultgren, A. Linné, S. Svensjö
Notes: Cost effective
Influence of psoas muscle area on mortality following elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. BJS 2019; 106: 367-374.
Authors: M. A. Waduud, B. Wood, P. Keleabetswe, J. Manning, E. Linton, M. Drozd et al.
Systematic review of endovascular intervention and surgery for common femoral artery atherosclerotic disease. BJS 2019; 106: 13-22.
Authors: X. Jia, Z. D. Sun, J. V. Patel, K. Flood, D. D. Stocken, D. J. A. Scott et al.
Sex differences in national rates of repair of emergency abdominal aortic aneurysm. BJS 2019; 106: 82-89.
Authors: A. Aber, T. S. Tong, J. Chilcott, P. Thokala, R. Maheswaran, S. M. Thomas et al.
Notes: Why worse for women?
Randomized clinical trial
Cost‐effectiveness of revascularization in patients with intermittent claudication. BJS 2018; 105: 1742-1748.
Authors: H. Djerf, M. Falkenberg, L. Jivegård, H. Lindgren, M. Svensson, J. Nordanstig et al.
Notes: Revascularization effective but pricey
Systematic review of the safety and efficacy of osseointegration prosthesis after limb amputation. BJS 2018; 105: 1731-1741.
Authors: S. K. Kunutsor, D. Gillatt, A. W. Blom
Notes: Technology with potential
Authors: H. Shiwani, P. Baxter, E. Taylor, M. A. Bailey, D. J. A. Scott