These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Occlusion rate, venous symptoms and patient satisfaction after radiofrequency-induced thermotherapy (RFITT®): are there differences between the great and the small saphenous veins?
    Author: Doerler M, Blenkers T, Reich-Schupke S, Altmeyer P, Stücker M.
    Journal: Vasa; 2015 May; 44(3):203-10. PubMed ID: 26098324.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Previous studies on the therapy of insufficient saphenous veins mainly compare different treatment methods. Only a few investigate differences of a specific treatment option between the great (GSV) and the small saphenous vein (SSV). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, clinical improvement and patient satisfaction after radiofrequency-induced thermotherapy (RFITT®) with regard to the treated vein. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 65 patients (40 women, 25 men; mean age 54.75 years) who were treated with RFITT® for incompetent saphenous veins (n = 83: 62 GSV, 21 SSV). Occlusion rates were determined by duplex-sonography. Additionally, we performed a prospective analysis of venous symptoms and signs by means of a standardized questionnaire and of patient satisfaction using a semi-quantitative rating (1 = very good, 6 = insufficient). RESULTS: The GSV group showed a significantly greater reduction of venous symptoms in comparison to the SSV group (p = 0.005) despite no significant differences in long term occlusion rates (mean time after operation: 22 months) of 90 % in the GSV group and 81.8 % in the SSV group (p = 0.598). Following the procedure, detailed analysis revealed significantly more swelling (p = 0.022), feeling of heavy legs (p = 0.002) and nightly calf cramps (p = 0.001) in the SSV group. Additionally, RFITT® led to a significant improvement in patient satisfaction in the GSV group (from 1.93 at day 1 - 3 to 1.41 after 6 - 12 months, p = 0.009) but not in the SSV group (from 2.29 to 2.07, p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: With regard to the improvement of venous symptoms and patient satisfaction, the benefit of RFITT® is greater for patients with incompetent GSV compared to those with incompetent SSV.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]