ArticleAnnals of vascular diseases2025
Clinical Results 5 Years after Radiofrequency Ablation of Saphenous Veins.
Article in Annals of vascular diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Algorithm to Select the Treatment Modality for the Incompetent Saphenous Vein.Vascular specialist international · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: In Japan, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was covered by insurance in 2014. Regarding the early results, there are many reports that it is excellent, but the long-term results are rarely shown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the results up to 5 years after RFA, which was the only means of endovascular treatment at my facility, and to evaluate recurrent varices after surgery (REVAS), reoperation, and complications. Methods: In 2017, 275 consecutive cases (male 83, female 192, 67.5 ± 10.0 years old), involving 350 limbs (C2, 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 6 = 217, 18, 89, 18, 1, 7) and 354 veins (great saphenous vein [GSV]: 290, small saphenous vein [SSV]: 64), underwent RFA. Postoperative follow-up was usually performed at 3 days (100%), 1 week (100%), 1 month (99.4%), and 6 months (93.5%) after RFA. Of the 334 patients contacted 5 years later, 327 (92.4%), excluding deaths from other diseases, were interviewed about reoperation, recurrence, and neuropathy. Of these, 223 patients (63%, GSV: 180, SSV: 43) underwent an ultrasound examination. Results: Endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) of more than grade 2 occurred in 5.9% of cases (GSV: 6.6%, SSV: 3.1%) and regressed within 1 month in all cases using anticoagulant therapy. Neuropathy occurred in 6.3%, mainly in GSV full-length ablation cases, and 41% of these disappeared completely between 6 months and 5 years after RFA. The reoperation rate up to 5 years after RFA was 10.7% (GSV: 9.7, SSV: 15.6%). In the reoperation cases after the RFA of GSV, the sites of reflux were 14 incompetent perforating veins (IPVs), 7 deep venous junction-related, and 6 distal GSVs. In the reoperation cases after the RFA of SSV, there were 5 IPVs and 3 isolated branch varices. The time of diagnosis of recurrence by ultrasonography was within 6 months of regular follow-up in 61% of GSVs and 79% of SSVs. The occlusion rate after 5 years was 98.9% for GSV and 95.3% for SSV. Only 1 recanalized vein was symptomatic and underwent retreatment. After RFA of GSV, 80% of accessory saphenous veins were retained at 5 years. Conclusions: 1) The 5-year results after RFA were generally good. 2) IPV played the most important role in reoperation cases by REVAS after RFA of the saphenous veins. 3) The majority of postoperative recurrences could be identified by follow-up up to 6 months. 4) Neuropathy after RFA disappeared completely in half of the cases within 5 years. 5) After GSV-RFA, accessory saphenous vein blood flow persisted in most cases. (This is a translation of Jpn J Phlebol 2024; 35: 403-408.).
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.