SynthesisJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders2026
Efficacy and safety of cyanoacrylate ablation vs endovenous radiofrequency ablation for varicose veins in chronic great saphenous vein insufficiency: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEndovenous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cyanoacrylate ablation (CA) are widely used for the treatment of chronic great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency. Compared with traditional surgery, both modalities have demonstrated well-recognized therapeutic benefits. However, controversy remains regarding the optimal choice between RFA and CA. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the early and mid-term clinical outcomes of RFA vs CA.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies evaluating RFA and CA for the treatment of GSV incompetence were included. The primary outcomes were GSV occlusion rate and Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS). Secondary outcomes included skin pigmentation, phlebitis, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), ecchymosis, and procedure-related phlebitis. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed by two reviewers. Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.3.
resultsA total of 21 studies were included, encompassing 7844 patients and 9677 limbs. In terms of efficacy, there were no significant differences between CA and RFA in GSV occlusion rate or VCSS. Regarding safety, pooled data showed that CA was associated with a lower incidence of ecchymosis (5.96% vs 10.97%; P = .01) and paresthesia (1.24% vs 2.97%; P = .04). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the incidence of phlebitis, DVT, or pigmentation. In addition, the procedure time was significantly shorter in the CA group than in the RFA group (P < .001).
conclusionsFor the treatment of incompetent saphenous veins, CA provides comparable efficacy to RFA. However, CA is associated with lower rates of skin pigmentation and ecchymosis, as well as a shorter procedure time.
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.