After adjusting for duration of follow-up they found that compared with SVS, UGFS and RFA were as effective, and EVLA significantly more effective (van den Bos et al 2009).
Both EVLA and RFA are also considered to be as effective as SVS for the treatment of primary GSV incompetence in terms of early recanalisation rates, and mid-term recurrence of visible VV.
05) were more frequent in the surgery group, whereas the EVLA group reported more perioperative pain or tightness (17% vs.
The incidence of bruising of 13-27% after RFA (Lurie et al 2003; Vasquez et al 2007) and 11-15% after EVLA (Rasmussen et al 2007; Christenson et al 2010), while significantly less than after SVS, are still higher than the 7% rate of bruising after UGFS 10.
However, due to uncertainty around the costs, specifically that the RFA catheter is more expensive, but the EVLA requires a laser controlled area, it is not straight forward to identify which of these treatments is cheaper.
RF ablation is associated with less pronounced postprocedural pain syndrome compared with EVLA.
Pronounced improvement of QOL scores and clinical severity scores was noted after treatment with RF ablation compared with EVLA procedure, though clinical significance of this difference is quite low
EVLA provides an excellent alternative to conventional surgery in the treatment of symptomatic varicosis due to an incompetent GSV with SFJ.
Here again, both conventional surgery and EVLA outperformed UGFS, with rates of 17%, 13%, and 4%, respectively.
In contrast, EVLA was done under local tumescent anesthesia using a 940-nm laser.