Comparison of endovenous laser and radiofrequency ablation treatment efficiencies in lower extremity varicose veins

Varicose veins of the lower extremity is an important clinical entity with its epidemiologic and socioeconomic consequences which can largely affects individuals' quality of life. It gains importance because of high prevalence, diagnose and treatment costs, loss of productive work hours and adverse effects on quality of life. Endovenous laser ablation and radiofrequency ablation are endovenous thermal ablation techniques commonly used in varicose vein treatment over the last decade. We targetted to compare treatment efficiency of these two methods widely used in lower extremity varicose vein management. Patients who underwent endovenous laser ablation or endovenous radiofrequency ablation treatment because of varicose veins between 2012 January and 2013 December in our clinic were investigated from current archive system of hospital. Patients whose communication information were documented dialed individually. Patients who wants to attend the study after informed were underwent duplex ultrasonography of treated limb. Using duplex ultrasound findings, efficiency of these two intervention is compared by means of 'international union of phlebology' classification. Total of 78 patients and 94 limbs were evaluated. 56 limbs underwent endovenous laser ablation and 38 limbs underwent radiofrequency ablation were evaluated for patency and saphenofemoral junction reflux rates. In endovenous laser ablation group, 43 limbs were occluded (% 76.8) and 13 limbs were patent (% 23.2). In radiofrequency group, 32 limbs were occluded (% 84.2) and 6 limbs were patent (%15.8). When these groups were compared there was no statistically significant difference between patency rates. Endovenous laser and radiofrequency ablation are feasible and minimally invasive treatments of varicose veins with short recovery time and less postoperative pain. There were no significant difference between these treatments in midterm results of our study. Practitioners using these techniques should consider the cost of treatment, patient convenience and their own experience for decision making of these methods. It would be also beneficial comparing long-term results of these two treatments.