Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) showed no clear difference in technical success (< 5 years) compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (moderate certainty).
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) showed no clear difference in recurrence (< 5 years) compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (low certainty).
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) may leads to higher long‐term recurrence (> 5 years) compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) changes long‐term recurrence (> 5 years) compared with ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) (very low certainty).
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) may leads to higher technical success (< 5 years) compared with SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) (low certainty).
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) showed no clear difference in recurrence (< 5 years) compared with SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) (moderate certainty).
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) showed no clear difference in long‐term recurrence (> 5 years) compared with SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) (moderate certainty).
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) showed no clear difference in technical success (< 5 years) compared with ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) (low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) changes recurrence (< 5 years) compared with ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) (very low certainty).