Comparison of endovenous microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation for lower limb varicose veins.

objectiveEndovenous microwave ablation (EMA) is a recently developed thermal ablation technique used in the treatment of lower limb varicose veins. However, its efficacy and safety have been largely understudied. In the present study, we sought to explore the clinical results of EMA and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating lower limb varicose veins.

methodsPatients who underwent EMA (n = 65) or RFA (n = 46) at our institute from September 2018 to September 2020 were included in this retrospective investigation. The clinical results and complications were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure. The effects on disease severity and quality of life were evaluated using the venous clinical severity score and chronic venous insufficiency questionnaire (CIVIQ).

resultsThe technical success rate was 100% for both experimental groups. Although the operative time between the two groups was comparable, the EMA technique was associated with lower direct costs (P < .001), although also with prolonged hospitalization (P < .001). We found that the use of EMA correlated with more pain at 48 hours postoperatively. Except for the visual analog scale scores, no statistically significant variations were observed in the occurrence of postoperative complications within the first 48 hours postoperatively between the EMA and RFA groups, including paresthesia, ecchymosis, induration, and phlebitis (P > .05). At 4 weeks postoperatively, significantly less pigmentation was observed in the RFA group than in the EMA group (13.04% vs 32.31%; P = .020). However, the pigmentation had resolved in all patients by 12 months postoperatively. The two groups had a reduction in the venous clinical severity scores and an increase in the CIVIQ scores after the procedure. However, the CIVIQ scores within the RFA group had increased more than had those within the EMA group (P < .05). No significant differences were found in recurrence between the two groups (EMA group, 1.54%; RFA group, 2.17%; P = .804).

conclusionsBoth ablation techniques are safe and effective. RFA is associated with relatively higher treatment costs but shorter hospitalization and better quality of life improvement.