SynthesisBMC surgery2025
Clinical effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes of endovenous ablation and surgical stripping in varicose vein management: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality-of-life outcomes after varicose vein surgery: A 12-month prospective study of 605 patients identifying key prognostic factors.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2026Article
- Non-thermal venous endothelial injury by microsecond irreversible electroporation: mechanisms of apoptosis, oxidative stress, and vascular closure initiation.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsVaricose veins affect 17% of females and 15% of males globally, significantly impairing quality of life. Endovenous ablation techniques, including thermal methods such as Endovenous Laser Ablation (EVLA) and Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA), as well as non-thermal approaches like Mechanochemical Ablation (MOCA) and cyanoacrylate adhesive (NBCA), offer minimally invasive alternatives to traditional surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis, including 13 studies, evaluated the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of these interventions, integrating 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines and the 2022 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines.
methodsThis study followed PRISMA guidelines, using a random-effects model to compare occlusion and recurrence rates (primary outcomes). Secondary outcomes included quality-of-life improvements (Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire [AVVQ] and Venous Clinical Severity Score [VCSS]) and adverse events.
resultsEVLA and RFA achieved high occlusion rates (94.9% and 94.4%), comparable to surgical stripping (92.0%). Non-thermal methods had slightly lower occlusion (88.7%), but reduced early postoperative pain (MOCA: 1.2/10 vs. EVLA: 3.8/10). Five-year recurrence rates were 38.6% for EVLA, 18.7% for RFA, and 34.6% for surgery; non-thermal methods reported lower short-term recurrence but limited long-term data. Quality of life improved across treatments, with AVVQ scores decreasing by 7.8 points and VCSS scores by 3.5 points, indicating significant symptom relief and clinical improvement. Adverse events were higher for thermal ablation (6.8%) and surgical stripping (8.0%) than non-thermal methods (< 2.5%).
conclusionEndovenous ablation techniques provide high success rates and significant quality-of-life improvements, reinforcing its role as first-line therapy for varicose veins. Non-thermal methods may reduce pain and complications, which makes them very attractive alternatives for selected patients. However, long-term studies are warranted to confirm the durability and safety of these emerging treatments.
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.