ReviewCureus2020
The Effectiveness of Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation Application in Varicose Vein Diseases of the Lower Extremity.
Review in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Obese patients with CEAP (clinical, etiology, anatomy, pathophysiology) C2 and C3 disease show enhanced symptom improvement after endovenous thermal ablation.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2024Article
- Clinical Efficacy of Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) for Superficial Varicose Veins of the Lower Extremities.Disease markers · 2022Article
- Choosing the Best Treatment Approach for Axial Vein Reflux: Thermal versus Nonthermal Approaches.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to determine the outcome, complications, and quality of life effects of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of superficial venous insufficiency. A total of 134 extremities from 100 patients were evaluated in this retrospective study performed at the Cardiovascular Surgery Department of Atatürk University Faculty of Medicine. Treatment success was determined by occlusion. The clinical, etiologic, anatomic, and pathophysiologic (CEAP) and venous clinical severity score (VCSS) scores of patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively to evaluate clinical outcome and quality of life. The pain was assessed with the Wong-Baker score. Complications and their frequency were assessed and recorded. Treatment success, as measured by occlusion rate, was 99% percent. Prior to treatment, the CEAP clinical score was C2 (81.0%), while after treatment, it was C0 (54.0%) (p<0.001). The pretreatment median VCSS score was 5 (min-max: 1-9) while the post-treatment median was 1 (min-max: 1-3) (p<0.001). The mean pain score was 1.34; only one patient reported a score of 6 while the minimum score was 1. A total of 15 complications occurred; only one was a major complication (deep vein thrombosis or DVT) while the remaining 14 were minor complications. While longstanding surgical treatments still provide significant success, the RFA technique not only surpasses them in success rate but also in terms of pain, complications, and better patient satisfaction. The results of our study indicate that RFA is an effective and safe option for the treatment of superficial venous insufficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.