Comparison of Radiofrequency Ablation and Cyanoacrylate Closure for Large-Diameter Great Saphenous Vein Insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: To compare radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) for large-diameter great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency between diameters of 12 and 16 mm.

METHODS: This study is a single-center retrospective study. Subjects who underwent endovenous treatment with RFA (Group A) or CAC (Group B) for GSV insufficiency between June 2015 and June 2021 who were followed up for at least 2 years were included in the study. Subjects who had a 12-mm to 16-mm target vessel diameter and subjects with grade 3 and grade 4 reflux were included. Subjects' demographic data (age, sex), body mass indices, clinical, etiological, anatomic, pathophysiologic classification, GSV diameter, reflux grade, target vessel length, preoperative venous clinical severity score (VCSS), procedural time, postoperative first-day pain scores, postoperative 14th-day patient satisfaction scale, and postoperative complications were noted. In follow-up, subjects were evaluated with duplex ultrasonography and VCSS at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS: In total, 142 subjects were included (n = 71 for both groups). The mean GSV diameter was 13.21 ± 1.00 for Group A and 13.51 ± 0.97 for Group B. The groups did not differ in terms of age, sex, body mass index, clinical, etiological, anatomic, pathophysiologic classification, GSV diameter, reflux grade, target GSV length, preoperative VCSS, complications, postoperative 24-hr pain status or postoperative 14-day patient satisfaction scale (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). The procedure time was significantly shorter in Group B (34.68 ± 4.22 min for Group A vs. 22.59 ± 4.5 min for Group B, P = 0.001). In the 1-month and 6-month Duplex ultrasonography of the subjects, partial closure and patency rates in Group B were significantly higher than those in Group A (P = 0.003 and P = 0.025, respectively). At the 12-month and 24-month evaluation, closure rates did not show a statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.056 and P = 0.090, respectively). Preoperative and 1-month VCSS measurements did not show a statistically significant difference between groups (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). The 6-month, 12-month, and 24-month VCSS measurements of Group A were significantly higher than those in Group B. (P = 0.043, P = 0.009 and P = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: Both RFA and CAC were found to be effective in the treatment of large-diameter GSV incompetency. The complication rates were similar between the 2 techniques. CAC had a shorter procedure time. Although the closure rates in the early postoperative period were better in the RFA group, long-term follow-up demonstrated similar patency rates. The functional results in the long-term follow-up were better in the RFA group.