Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 52, Issue 5 , Pages 1234-1241, November 2010

Prospective randomized trial comparing endovenous laser ablation and surgery for treatment of primary great saphenous varicose veins with a 2-year follow-up

  • Jan T. Christenson, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Venous Centre, University Hospital of Geneva and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Dr Jan T. Christenson, MD, PhD, Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Venous Centre, University Hospital of Geneva, 4 rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland
  • ,
  • Salah Gueddi, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Angiology and Hemostasis, University Hospital of Geneva and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland
  • ,
  • Gino Gemayel, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Venous Centre, University Hospital of Geneva and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland
  • ,
  • Henri Bounameaux, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Angiology and Hemostasis, University Hospital of Geneva and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland

Received 25 March 2010; accepted 7 June 2010. published online 01 September 2010.

Background

Endovenous laser therapy (EVLT) for ablation of the great saphenous vein (GSV) is thought to minimize postoperative morbidity compared with high ligation and stripping (HL/S). Only a few randomized trials have reported early results. This prospective randomized trial compared EVLT (980 nm) and HL/S results at 1 and 2 years after the intervention.

Method

Patients with symptomatic varicose veins due to GSV insufficiency were randomized to HL/S (100 limbs) or EVLT (104 limbs). Four EVLT procedures failed primarily and were excluded. Phlebectomy and ligature of incompetent perforators were performed whenever indicated in both groups. Patients were re-examined clinically and by duplex ultrasound imaging preoperatively and at 12 days and at 1 and 2 years after treatment. Closure rate, complication rate, time to return to normal activity, the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Symptom Severity Score (AVVSS), the Varicose Venous Clinical Severity Score (VVCSS), and the Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 scores were also recorded.

Results

There were no differences in patient demographics, CEAP class, Widmer class, or severity scores between the groups. Simultaneous interventions did not differ between the groups. Similar times for the return to normal activity and scores for postoperative pain were reported. No major complications after treatment were recorded. HL/S limbs had significantly more postoperative hematomas than EVLT limbs, and EVLT patients reported more bruising. Follow-up at 1 year was 100% for HL/S and 99% for EVLT. Two GSVs in the EVLT group reopened and three partially reopened. No open GSVs occurred in HL/S limbs. Ninety-eight percent of the limbs in both groups were free of symptoms. VCSS, AVVSS, and Short Form-36 scores did not reveal any group differences. At 2 years, no differences compared with 1-year results were observed, except that two more GSVs in the EVLT group were partially reopened.

Conclusions

Abolition of GSV reflux and improvement in quality of life was similar after HL/S and EVLT. After EVLT, however, two GSVs were found completely reopened and five were partially reopened, which was significantly higher than after HL/S. A prolonged follow-up is ongoing.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 The editors and reviewers of this article have no relevant financial relationships to disclose per the JVS policy that requires reviewers to decline review of any manuscript for which they may have a competition of interest.

 Competition of interest: none.

PII: S0741-5214(10)01499-0

doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2010.06.104

Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 52, Issue 5 , Pages 1234-1241, November 2010