ArticleBMC surgery2026
Efficacy and safety of traditional open surgery versus radiofrequency ablation for great saphenous varicose veins: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of traditional open surgery and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins.
methodsA total of 177 patients with great saphenous varicose veins admitted to our hospital between January 2023 and December 2024 were retrospectively selected. According to the treatment methods, they were divided into the traditional open surgery group (TG, n = 85) and the radiofrequency ablation group (RG, n = 92). The surgical-related indicators, postoperative pain severity, quality of life score, incidence of complications, clinical efficacy, and postoperative recovery were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe RG exhibited shorter operative time, reduced intraoperative blood loss, smaller incision length, and shorter hospital stay compared with the TG (P < 0.05). The RG showed lower VAS pain scores at each time point after surgery than the TG (P < 0.05). At 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery, the AVVQ quality of life scores of the RG were lower than those of the TG (P < 0.05). The RG exhibited lower overall incidence of complications than the TG (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative venous closure rate and recurrence rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). The RG exhibited shorter postoperative ambulation time, wound healing time, and compression stocking wearing time compared with the TG (P < 0.05). Bed charges, nursing fees, and medication costs were lower in the RG (P < 0.05).
conclusionRadiofrequency ablation for great saphenous varicose veins is associated with several advantages, including reduced surgical trauma, faster recovery, less pain, and a lower incidence of complications. During the 6-month follow-up period, its clinical efficacy was comparable to that of the traditional open surgery, while showing potential advantages in cosmetic outcomes. Long-term efficacy requires further follow-up studies.
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.