Advertisement

Lasers in Medical Science

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 1505–1511 | Cite as

A 1470-nm laser combined with foam sclerotherapy in day surgery: a better choice for lower limb varicose veins

  • Xing Zhang
  • Xin Wang
  • Cheng Gao
  • Jinbao Qin
  • Haiguang ZhaoEmail author
  • Weimin LiEmail author
  • Xinwu LuEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Day surgery is being more and more adopted by clinicians. Higher wavelength lasers give patients better experience than lower wavelength lasers, which makes it more suitable for day surgery. This study compares the short- and mid-term efficacy, postoperative morbidity, and patient satisfaction of “1470-nm endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) combining foam sclerotherapy in day surgery” with “810-nm EVLA with high ligation combining foam sclerotherapy in hospital surgery” on great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency postoperatively. A single-institution historical cohort study of 194 patients was performed in Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, China. Ninety-seven patients received 1470-nm EVLA combining foam sclerotherapy in day surgery (“1470-nm group”), and 97 patients received 810-nm EVLA with high ligation combining foam sclerotherapy in hospital surgery recommended by guidelines (“810-nm group”). No significant difference was found between the 1470-nm group and the 810-nm group in terms of GSV occlusion rate (both 100%), complication rate, and recurrence rate (8.2 vs. 11.3%) during the period of 1–12 months after surgery. Serious complications in the 1470-nm group and 810-nm group were 0 and 1.0%. Minor complications in the 1470-nm group and 810-nm group were ecchymosis at 20.6 and 18.6%, edema at 69.1 and 63.9%, and paresthesia around ankle at 0 and 3.1%, respectively. Advantage of the 1470-nm group over the 810-nm group was statistically significant considering the patient perioperative comfort and economic cost. Treatment of 1470-nm EVLA combining foam sclerotherapy in day surgery has similar efficacy as the 810-nm EVLA with high ligation combining foam sclerotherapy in hospital surgery in GSV insufficiency and is more comfortable with less incision, hospitalization procedure, and medical costs. It may be a new option for patients who are afraid or unable to be hospitalized.

Keywords

Endovenous laser treatment Foam sclerotherapy Varicose veins Day surgery 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank Professor Lu Xinwu and Doctor Li Weimin for the enlightening discussions.

Funding information

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81601621, 81370423, 81570432).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine (Shanghai, China).

References

  1. 1.
    Wittens C, Davies AH, Baekgaard N, Broholm R, Cavezzi A, Chastanet S, de Wolf M, Eggen C, Giannoukas A, Gohel M, Kakkos S, Lawson J, Noppeney T, Onida S, Pittaluga P, Thomis S, Toonder I, Vuylsteke M, Kolh P, de Borst GJ, Chakfe N, Debus S, Hinchliffe R, Koncar I, Lindholt J, de Ceniga MV, Vermassen F, Verzini F, De Maeseneer MG, Blomgren L, Hartung O, Kalodiki E, Korten E, Lugli M, Naylor R, Nicolini P, Rosales A (2015) Editor’s choice—management of chronic venous disease: clinical practice guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 49(6):678–737.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.02.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gloviczki P, Gloviczki ML (2012) Guidelines for the management of varicose veins. Phlebology 27(Suppl 1):2–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edwards AG, Baynham S, Lees T, Mitchell DC (2009) Management of varicose veins: a survey of current practice by members of the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 91(1):77–80.  https://doi.org/10.1308/003588409X358953 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yamaki T, Hamahata A, Soejima K, Kono T, Nozaki M, Sakurai H (2012) Prospective randomised comparative study of visual foam sclerotherapy alone or in combination with ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for treatment of superficial venous insufficiency: preliminary report. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 43(3):343–347.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.07.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kanwar A, Hansrani M, Lees T, Stansby G (2010) Trends in varicose vein therapy in England: radical changes in the last decade. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 92(4):341–346.  https://doi.org/10.1308/003588410X12518836440649 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pannier F, Rabe E, Rits J, Kadiss A, Maurins U (2011) Endovenous laser ablation of great saphenous veins using a 1470 nm diode laser and the radial fibre—follow-up after six months. Phlebology 26(1):35–39.  https://doi.org/10.1258/phleb.2010.009096 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vuylsteke M, De Bo T, Dompe G, Di Crisci D, Abbad C, Mordon S (2011) Endovenous laser treatment: is there a clinical difference between using a 1500 nm and a 980 nm diode laser? A multicenter randomised clinical trial. Int Angiol 30:327–334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arun O, Oc B, Duman A, Yildirim S, Simsek M, Farsak B, Oc M (2014) Endovenous laser ablation under general anesthesia for day surgery: feasibility and outcomes of the 300 patients. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 20(1):55–60.  https://doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.13-00222 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE Jr, Colvin MM, Drazner MH, Filippatos G, Fonarow GC, Givertz MM, Hollenberg SM, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, McBride PE, Peterson PN, Stevenson LW, Westlake C (2016) 2016 ACC/AHA/HFSA focused update on new pharmacological therapy for heart failure: an update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. J Am Coll Cardiol 68(13):1476–1488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tessari L, Cavezzi A, Frullini A (2001) Preliminary experience with a new sclerosing foam in the treatment of varicose veins. Dermatol Surg 27(1):58–60.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4725.2001.00192.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rasmussen LH, Bjoern L, Lawaetz M, Blemings A, Lawaetz B, Eklof B (2007) Randomized trial comparing endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein with high ligation and stripping in patients with varicose veins: short-term results. J Vasc Surg 46(2):308–315.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2007.03.053 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang Y, Jiang M, Li W, Lu X, Huang X, Lu M (2005) Endovenous laser treatment combined with a surgical strategy for treatment of venous insufficiency in lower extremity: a report of 208 cases. J Vasc Surg 42(3):494–501; discussion 501.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2005.02.051 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roberts L (2006) Day surgery—national and international: from the past to the future. Ambul Surg 12(3):143–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ambsur.2005.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen JQ, Xie H, Deng HY, Yuan K, Zhang JW, Zhang H, Zhang L (2013) Endovenous laser ablation of great saphenous vein with ultrasound-guided perivenous tumescence: early and midterm results. Chin Med J 126(3):421–425.  https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20122290 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carroll C, Hummel S, Leaviss J, Ren S, Stevens JW, Everson-Hock E, Cantrell A, Stevenson M, Michaels J (2013) Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive techniques to manage varicose veins: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 17(48):i-xvi, 1–141Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doganci S, Demirkilic U (2010) Comparison of 980 nm laser and bare-tip fibre with 1470 nm laser and radial fibre in the treatment of great saphenous vein varicosities: a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 40(2):254–259.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.04.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aktas AR, Celik O, Ozkan U, Cetin M, Koroglu M, Yilmaz S, Daphan BU, Oguzkurt L (2015) Comparing 1470- and 980-nm diode lasers for endovenous ablation treatments. Laser Med Sci 30(5):1583–1587.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-015-1768-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bozoglan O, Mese B, Inci MF, Eroglu E (2013) A rare complication of endovenous laser ablation: intravascular laser catheter breakage. BMJ Case Rep 2013.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2013-009012
  19. 19.
    Breu FX, Guggenbichler S (2004) European consensus meeting on foam sclerotherapy, April, 4–6, 2003, Tegernsee, Germany. Dermatol Surg 30(5):709–717; discussion 717.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.2004.30209.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Vascular Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People’s HospitalShanghai JiaoTong University School of MedicineShanghaiChina
  2. 2.The Affiliated Central Hospital of Qingdao UniversityQingdaoChina
  3. 3.Laser Cosmetic Center, Shanghai Ninth People’s HospitalShanghai JiaoTong University School of MedicineShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations