Scholarlink

Background <p>This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of traditional open surgery and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins.</p> Methods <p>A total of 177 patients with great saphenous varicose veins admitted to our hospital between January 2023 and December 2024 were retrospectively selected. According to the treatment methods, they were divided into the traditional open surgery group (TG, <i>n</i> = 85) and the radiofrequency ablation group (RG, <i>n</i> = 92). The surgical-related indicators, postoperative pain severity, quality of life score, incidence of complications, clinical efficacy, and postoperative recovery were compared between the two groups.</p> Results <p>The RG exhibited shorter operative time, reduced intraoperative blood loss, smaller incision length, and shorter hospital stay compared with the TG (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05). The RG showed lower VAS pain scores at each time point after surgery than the TG (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05). At 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery, the AVVQ quality of life scores of the RG were lower than those of the TG (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05). The RG exhibited lower overall incidence of complications than the TG (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative venous closure rate and recurrence rate between the two groups (<i>P</i> &gt; 0.05). The RG exhibited shorter postoperative ambulation time, wound healing time, and compression stocking wearing time compared with the TG (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05). Bed charges, nursing fees, and medication costs were lower in the RG (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05).</p> Conclusion <p>Radiofrequency ablation for great saphenous varicose veins is associated with several advantages, including reduced surgical trauma, faster recovery, less pain, and a lower incidence of complications. During the 6-month follow-up period, its clinical efficacy was comparable to that of the traditional open surgery, while showing potential advantages in cosmetic outcomes. Long-term efficacy requires further follow-up studies.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Efficacy and safety of traditional open surgery versus radiofrequency ablation for great saphenous varicose veins: a retrospective comparative study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月29日

查看全文
  • Yi Sun,
  • Mingfu Hu,
  • Shanhu Huang,
  • Huijing Pan

摘要

Background

This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of traditional open surgery and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins.

Methods

A total of 177 patients with great saphenous varicose veins admitted to our hospital between January 2023 and December 2024 were retrospectively selected. According to the treatment methods, they were divided into the traditional open surgery group (TG, n = 85) and the radiofrequency ablation group (RG, n = 92). The surgical-related indicators, postoperative pain severity, quality of life score, incidence of complications, clinical efficacy, and postoperative recovery were compared between the two groups.

Results

The RG exhibited shorter operative time, reduced intraoperative blood loss, smaller incision length, and shorter hospital stay compared with the TG (P < 0.05). The RG showed lower VAS pain scores at each time point after surgery than the TG (P < 0.05). At 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery, the AVVQ quality of life scores of the RG were lower than those of the TG (P < 0.05). The RG exhibited lower overall incidence of complications than the TG (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative venous closure rate and recurrence rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). The RG exhibited shorter postoperative ambulation time, wound healing time, and compression stocking wearing time compared with the TG (P < 0.05). Bed charges, nursing fees, and medication costs were lower in the RG (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Radiofrequency ablation for great saphenous varicose veins is associated with several advantages, including reduced surgical trauma, faster recovery, less pain, and a lower incidence of complications. During the 6-month follow-up period, its clinical efficacy was comparable to that of the traditional open surgery, while showing potential advantages in cosmetic outcomes. Long-term efficacy requires further follow-up studies.