Doerler, Martin;
Blenkers, Thomas;
Reich-Schupke, Stefanie;
Altmeyer, Peter;
Stücker, Markus
Occlusion rate, venous symptoms and patient satisfaction after radiofrequency-induced thermotherapy (RFITT®): are there differences between the great and the small saphenous veins?
Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
Medientyp:
E-Artikel
Titel:
Occlusion rate, venous symptoms and patient satisfaction after radiofrequency-induced thermotherapy (RFITT®): are there differences between the great and the small saphenous veins?
:
Verschlussrate, venöse Symptome und Patientenzufriedenheit nach Radiofrequenz-induzierter Thermotherapie (RFITT®): gibt es Unterschiede zwischen der V. saphena magna und der V. saphena parva?
Beschreibung:
<jats:p> 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. </jats:p>