ArticleWideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques2026
Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation combined with high ligation vs simple radiofrequency ablation for lower extremity varicose veins: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSimple radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a standard minimally-invasive treatment for lower extremity varicose veins (LEVV), yet concerns regarding recurrence and efficacy in severe cases persist.
aimWe aimed to evaluate clinical efficacy, safety, and long-term prognosis of RFA combined with high ligation (RFHL) vs simple RFA. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 108 LEVV patients (from January 2020 to November 2024) divided into 2 groups based on the procedure they underwent: RFHL (n = 54) and RFA (n = 54). The comparisons included perioperative indicators, clinical efficacy, complications, and 1-year recurrence rates. A stratified analysis was performed for severe cases (Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Pathophysiology [CEAP] classification, C4-C6).
resultsPerioperative metrics (operative time, blood loss, recovery, and pain intensity) showed no differences between the groups. However, RFHL achieved a significantly higher total effective rate than RFA. Notably, in severe cases (C4-C6), RFHL efficacy was superior. The RFHL group demonstrated markedly lower complication and 1-year recurrence rates. Additionally, 6-month venous function was considerably better in the RFHL group.
conclusionsRFHL is associated with comparable perioperative recovery to RFA but offers significantly higher efficacy, better safety, and lower long-term recurrence, especially in severe LEVV (CEAP, C4-C6). RFHL should be considered the preferred surgical approach for severe cases.
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.