ReviewJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders2026
Cryolaser cryosclerotherapy versus isolated sclerotherapy for telangiectasias and reticular veins: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the incidence of adverse events between cryolaser cryosclerotherapy (CLaCS) and isolated sclerotherapy for lower limb telangiectasias and reticular veins and to determine pooled adverse event rates after CLaCS.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through February 2025 for studies of adults with telangiectasias or reticular veins (Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical, and Pathophysiological C1-C2) treated with CLaCS, reporting quantitative adverse event data. Risk ratios (RRs) were pooled using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models for comparative studies. Single-arm proportions were pooled using Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Primary outcomes were telangiectatic matting, microthrombi formation, and hyperpigmentation. Secondary outcomes were ecchymosis and skin necrosis. An additional single-arm pooled proportion of satisfactory vessel clearance was estimated as a secondary efficacy outcome.
resultsSix studies (833 patients) were included; three provided direct comparative data (363 CLaCS vs 259 sclerotherapy). CLaCS was associated with significantly lower rates of matting (RR, 0.07 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.36]), microthrombi (RR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.06-0.54]), and ecchymosis (RR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.32-0.58]). No significant difference was found for hyperpigmentation (RR, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.06-1.44]; I
conclusionsCLaCS was associated with significantly lower rates of matting, microthrombi, and ecchymosis compared with isolated sclerotherapy, with near-zero incidence of matting and skin necrosis. High heterogeneity in hyperpigmentation highlights the need for trials with standardized outcome measures. CLaCS also achieved a high pooled rate of satisfactory vessel clearance and consistently high patient satisfaction across studies, supporting its efficacy alongside its favorable safety profile.
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.