OBJECTIVES:This study compared radiofrequency ablation versus conventional surgery in patients who had not undergone previous treatment for bilateral great saphenous vein insufficiency, with each patient serving as his own control.METHOD:This was a randomized controlled trial that included 18 patients and was carried out between November 2013 and May 2015. Each of the lower limbs of each patient was randomly assigned to undergo either radiofrequency ablation or conventional surgery. Clinical features (hyperpigmentation, hematoma, aesthetics, pain, skin burn, nerve injury, and thrombophlebitis) were evaluated at one week, one month, and six months postoperatively. Hemodynamic assessments (presence of resection or occlusion of the great saphenous vein and recurrent reflux in the sapheno-femoral junction and in the great saphenous vein) were performed at one month, six months, and 12 months postoperatively. The independent observer (a physician not involved in the original operation), patient, and duplex ultrasonographer were not made aware of the treatment done in each case. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02588911.RESULTS:Among the clinical variables analyzed, only the aesthetic evaluation by the physicians was significant, with radiofrequency ablation being considered better than conventional surgery (average, 0.91 points higher: standard deviation: 0.31; 95% confidence interval: -1.51, -0.30; p=0.003). However, in our study, we observed primary success rates of 80% for radiofrequency ablation and 100% for conventional surgery.CONCLUSIONS:If the physician is not required to inform the patient as to the technique being performed, the patient will not be able to identify the technique based on the signs and symptoms. Our study revealed that both techniques led to high levels of patient satisfaction, but our results favor the choice of conventional surgery over radiofrequency ablation, as patients who underwent conventional surgery had better hemodynamic assessments.
dor persistente apesar da terapia médica, sinais de isquemia distal do membro, sinais de ruptura da aorta, progressão da dilatação do aneurisma da aorta descendente, durante o seguimento (definida como um diâmetro > 5 cm) e descendente da aorta torácica de 40 mm ou mais de diâmetro no início da dissecção aórtica. Os dados foram analisados estatisticamente considerados erro alfa de 5%. As variáveis
OBJECTIVE:Prevention is the best treatment for cerebrovascular disease, which is why early diagnosis and the immediate treatment of carotid stenosis contribute significantly to reducing the incidence of stroke. Given its silent nature, 80% of stroke cases occur in asymptomatic individuals, emphasizing the importance of screening individuals with carotid stenosis and identifying high-risk groups for the disease. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and the most frequent risk factors for carotid stenosis.METHODS:A transversal study was conducted in the form of a stroke prevention campaign held on three non-consecutive Saturdays. During the sessions, carotid stenosis diagnostic procedures were performed for 500 individuals aged 60 years or older who had systemic arterial hypertension and/or diabetes mellitus and/or coronary heart disease and/or a family history of stroke.RESULTS:The prevalence of carotid stenosis in the population studied was 7.4%, and the most frequent risk factors identified were mean age of 70 years, carotid bruit, peripheral obstructive arterial disease, coronary insufficiency and smoking. Independent predictive factors of carotid stenosis include the presence of carotid bruit or peripheral obstructive arterial disease and/or coronary insufficiency.CONCLUSIONS:The population with peripheral obstructive arterial disease and/or coronary insufficiency and carotid bruit should undergo routine screening for carotid stenosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.