SynthesisLasers in medical science2024
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) 980 nm versus 1470 nm and the impact of fiber type: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of endovenous laser ablation utilizing a 980 nm device versus a 1470 nm device in the treatment of lower limb venous insufficiency. We performed a systematic review adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. A research on PubMed, Scopus and Web of science for articles published by January 2024 was conducted. The primary endpoint was great saphenous vein (GSV) and truncal vein occlusion. Eleven studies encompassing 3061 patients and 3193 truncal veins, were included. The 1470 nm device demonstrated superior truncal vein and GSV occlusion outcomes compared to the 980 nm device at the early, one-year, and medium to long-term follow-up intervals. Odds ratios (OR) were 2.79(95%CI:1.31-5.94), 2.22(95%CI:1.21-4.07), and 2.02(95%CI:1.24-3.29) for truncal veins and 2.54(95%CI:1.119-5.41), 2.06(95%CI:1.07-3.95) and 2.04(95%CI:1.25-3.33) for GSV, across the respective intervals. While both devices demonstrated minimal, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) ≥ 2, and burn estimates, the 1470 nm device exhibited improved paresthesia, risk ratio (RR), 0.51(95%CI:0.34-0.77) and pain outcomes, standardized mean difference (SMD), -0.62(95%CI:-0.99to-0.25). Subgroup analysis displayed enhanced occlusion outcomes with the 1470 nm device for the six-month and one-year intervals, irrespective of fiber type. Radial fibers were associated with improved paresthesia outcomes (β=-0.9520,p = 0.03). This review emphasized the enhanced efficacy of the 1470 nm device over the 980 nm device, regardless of fiber type. Radial fibers showed promise for improved paresthesia outcomes, suggesting similar safety profiles for both systems. Conclusive remarks on pain outcomes were impeded by data limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38935309What 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.