Ablation of the great saphenous vein with F-care versus Closurefast endovenous radiofrequency therapy: Double-blinded prospective study

Bitargil, Macit; Kılıç, Helin El

doi:10.1177/0268355520913389

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The superficial course of GSV is known to increase the risk of skin burns and skin pigmentation. 4,5 Although the patients in both groups had similar superficial GSV courses in our study, the ClosureFast method resulted in a higher rate of skin pigmentation. Therefore, the major reason for this difference is thought to be the lower heat applied to the tissues (70°C in the F-care method) which was reduced by the clot formation on the tip of the catheter in the distal part of the thigh.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…There are only a limited number of studies comparing the ablation success rates of those two endovenous radiofrequency catheters with divergent outcomes. [4][5][6] This study aims to compare the monopolar ablation method with the conventional bipolar segmental endovenous radiofrequency ablation method for the management of incompetent saphenous veins.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein; does the choice of monopolar or bipolar catheters affect outcomes?

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Radiofrequency-based procedure is one of the leading methods of endovenous thermal ablation. The most fundamental difference with regards to currently available radiofrequency ablation systems is the way of electric current flow given to the vein wall; bipolar segmental and monopolar ablation. This study aimed to compare the monopolar ablation method with conventional bipolar segmental endovenous radiofrequency ablation method for the management of incompetent saphenous veins. Methods Between November 2019 and November 2021, 121 patients with incompetent varicose veins who were treated either with the F-Care/monopolar ( N = 49) or ClosureFast/bipolar ( N = 72) were included in the study. A single extremity of each patient with isolated great saphenous vein insufficiency was enrolled. The differences between the two groups in demographic parameters, disease severity, treated veins, peri- and postoperative complications, and treatment efficacy indicators were retrospectively evaluated. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding demographic parameters, disease severity, and treated veins in preoperative period ( p > 0,05). The average procedural time was 21.4 ± 4 minutes in the monopolar group, while it was 17.1 ± 3 minutes in the bipolar group. In both groups, the venous clinical severity scores declined significantly compared with the preoperative period, however; there was no difference between groups ( p > 0,05). The occlusion rate of the saphenofemoral junction and proximal saphenous vein after 1 year was 94.1% in the bipolar group and 91.8% in the monopolar group ( p = 0.4) while there was a significant difference in the occlusion rate of the shaft and distal part of the saphenous vein (93.2% in the bipolar group and 80.4% in the monopolar group, p = 0.04). Postoperative complications (bruising and skin pigmentation) were slightly higher in the bipolar group ( p = 0.02, p = 0.01). Conclusions Both systems are effective in treating the venous insufficiency of the lower extremity. Monopolar system revealed a better early postoperative course with similar occlusion rate of the proximal part of saphenous vein compared with bipolar system, however; the occlusion of the lower half of the saphenous vein was significantly lower which may negatively affect long-term occlusion rates and recurrence of the disease.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein; does the choice of monopolar or bipolar catheters affect outcomes?

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The adherence to the vein wall was more frequently encountered with the pullback F-care systems with a smaller treatment tip. 11 Bitargil M et al 9 reported that the 1-year occlusion rate in the F-care and Closurefast group were 71.7% and 90.6%, respectively ( P = .013); Nyamekye IK et al 11 have demonstrated complete great saphenous vein closure was significantly better after Closurefast treatment compared with F-care therapy at 6 months (100% vs 79%, P < .01). Contradicting to the results of prior studies, the current study showed that the 1-year occlusion rate of F-care was 98.4%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are very few published studies in the literature regarding the F-care endovenous radiofrequency therapy. 9 In this context, the present study was to describe the experience of the F-care RFA combined with UGFS, supplemented by microphlebectomy of the superficial varicose veins and ligation of pathologic perforators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combination of Minimally Invasive Methods for the Treatment of Varicose Veins

Ren,

Wang,

Shao

et al. 2023

Vasc Endovascular Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of minimally invasive methods for the treatment of incompetent great saphenous vein and perforating veins. Methods Between December 2019 and October 2020, F-care radiofrequency ablation combined with ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy and residual perforator ligation and concomitant microphlebectomy were adopted for all eligible patients. The clinical symptoms scores, complications, and quality of life were recorded. Results 49 patients (64 limbs) with a mean age of 63.29 ± 10.14 years, and 60.9% 4 were male. The 1-year truncal closure rate was 63/64 (98.4%). 1 A significant improvement in the Venous Disability Score, the Venous Segmental Disease Score, the Venous Clinical Severity Score and Chronic Venous Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire Score, at 12 months after the combination of minimally invasive treatment, were observed in the study. One patient developed intermuscular vein thrombosis that was successfully managed with rivaroxaban. Conclusions The combination of minimally invasive methods is a safe and effective method for the treatment of lower extremity varicose veins. Further large-scale, prospective, multi-center studies are needed to further verify the findings of this study.

show abstract

“…The 30-d total occlusion rates in the F-Care and Closurefast groups were 96.2% and 98.1%, respectively ( P = 0.5). The 1-year full occlusion rates in the F-Care and Closurefast groups were 71.7% and 90.6%, respectively ( P = 0.013)[ 45 ]. The 3-RF trial is the first RCT of Venefit, radiofrequency induced thermal therapy (RFITT), and endovenous radiofrequency (EVRF) to compare outcomes of RFA devices.…”

Section: Rfamentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies and challenges in treatment of varicose veins and venous insufficiency

Gao¹,

Qian²,

Wang³

et al. 2022

WJCC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients with varicose veins can be treated with conservative or surgical approaches based on the clinical conditions and patient preferences. In the recent decade, the recommendations for managing symptomatic varicose veins have changed dramatically due to the rise of minimally invasive endovascular techniques. The literature was systematically searched on Medline without language restrictions. All papers on the treatment of varicose veins and venous insufficiency with different procedures were included and reviewed. Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) both are same safe and effective in terms of occlusion rate, and time to return to normal activity. In comparison with RFA or EVLT, Cure conservatrice et Hemodynamique de l'Insufficience Veineuse en Ambulatoire (CHIVA) may cause more bruising and make little or no difference to rates of limb infection, superficial vein thrombosis, nerve injury, or hematoma. In terms of recurrence of varicose veins, there is little or no difference between CHIVA and stripping, RFA, or EVLT. Great saphenous vein recanalization is highest in the ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (FS) group (51%) during 1 year of follow-up. The 2013 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines recommend surgery as a third-line therapeutic option after EVLA or RFA and sclerotherapy. Although the mechanochemical endovenous ablation (MOCA) is a non-thermal, non-tumescent option and appears to be of similar efficacy to stab avulsion with no potential risk of nerve damage, the overall success rate of MOCA is lower than those of other procedures such as EVLA, RFA, or high ligation and stripping. EVLA is the most cost-effective therapeutic option, with RFA being a close second for the treatment of patients with varicose veins. Endovenous thermal ablation (EVLA or RFA) is recommended as a first-line treatment for varicose veins and has substituted the high ligation of saphenofemoral junctional reflux and stripping of varicose veins. Ultrasound-guided FS is associated with a high recurrence rate and can be used in conjunction with other procedures. MOCA and cyanoacrylate embolization appear promising, but evidence of their effectiveness is required.

show abstract

Ablation of the great saphenous vein with F-care versus Closurefast endovenous radiofrequency therapy: Double-blinded prospective study

Cited by 5 publications

References 13 publications

Radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein; does the choice of monopolar or bipolar catheters affect outcomes?

Radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein; does the choice of monopolar or bipolar catheters affect outcomes?

Combination of Minimally Invasive Methods for the Treatment of Varicose Veins

Strategies and challenges in treatment of varicose veins and venous insufficiency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About