ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2023
Endovenous laser ablation versus conventional surgery (ligation and stripping) for primary great saphenous varicose vein: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of traditional open surgery versus radiofrequency ablation for great saphenous varicose veins: a retrospective comparative study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Does Surgical Treatment of Varicose Veins Prior to Total Knee Arthroplasty Decrease Rates of Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism? A Matched Cohort Study.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Venous Insufficiency: Wound Management.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Safety and efficacy of endovenous ablation in patients with a history of deep vein thrombosis.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2024Article
- Endovenous laser treatmentWorld journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The great saphenous varicose vein was managed with high ligation and stripping conventionally, but with the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques like endovascular laser ablation (EVLA), they have become popular. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aim to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of these two modalities on headings like procedural time, technical success, recovery time, recurrences, cost-effectiveness, and complications. Materials and methods: The protocol followed in this study was registered prospectively in the Registry of Systematic Reviews/Meta-analyses. Electronic databases were searched with appropriate search terms for relevant studies, and after their screening, data was extracted. The odds ratio was used for dichotomous data, and the mean difference or standardized mean difference was used for continuous variables. Results: This study identified 18 publications (10 randomized controlled trials) with a total of 1936 patients. There was no difference in procedural time, recovery time, recurrences at 1, 2, and 5 years, or clinical severity score. The surgery group had 4.35 times higher statistically significant odds of being technically successful at 2 years, while pooling data on bruising, hematoma, sensory disturbance, infection, and phlebitis showed that the EVLA group was less likely to develop postoperative complications. Conclusion: Technical failures were more common in the EVLA, whereas postoperative complications were more common in the surgery group. Both have comparable clinical effectiveness, and neither modality has clear superiority over the other. Parameters like cost-effectiveness must be assessed at the hospital level before choosing the right procedure for the patients.
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.