Single-center retrospective review of early outcomes of radiofrequency ablation versus cyanoacrylate ablation of isolated great saphenous vein insufficiency

Objective: Data comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) treatment of isolated great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency are limited. In this study, we present our early outcomes of RFA vs CAC for the treatment of GSV insufficiency. Methods: Between March 2015 and February 2017, a total of 159 patients underwent CAC (n = 75) or RFA (n = 84) for treatment of GSV insufficiency by a single surgeon. Medical data of the patients were retrieved from the institutional database and retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent lower extremity venous color duplex ultrasound examination. The Venous Clinical Severity Score and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire were used. Total closure rates of the GSV with RFA or CAC were recorded at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months. Procedure-related adverse events and quality of life of the patients were also evaluated. Results: The mean age was 46.33 +/- 14.40 years in the CAC group and 48.09 +/- 13.25 years in the RFA group (P = .4). The mean treated saphenous vein diameter was 7 mm in the CAC group and 7.25 mm in the RFA group (P = .07). The length of treated venous segment was 30 cm in both the CAC and RFA groups (P = .66). The mean duration of operation was 25 minutes in the CAC group and 35 minutes in the RFA group (P < .001). The incidence of adverse events was higher in the RFA group (P < .05). At 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months of follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in the total closure rates between the CAC and RFA groups. There was no significant difference in the Venous Clinical Severity Score and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score between the groups (P > .05). Conclusions: Our study results suggest that both RFA and CAC are effective in closure of the target GSV. Although the incidence of tumescent anesthesia-related and procedure-related complications is higher with the RFA technique, both techniques can be used safely with similar success rate and patient satisfaction.