Cochrane · systematic review · CD005624
Interventions for great saphenous vein incompetence
Whing, J, Nandhra, S, Nesbitt, C, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · Cochrane Library
VascularAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
36
current version
GRADE rated
34
No studies
2
Included studies
NR
No studies 2 · 5.6%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 8 · 22.2%Low 15 · 41.7%Moderate 11 · 30.6%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) compared to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence
Population: people with GSV incompetence
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Technical success (< 5 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs radiofrequency ablation (RFA) | OR 0.98 [0.41, 2.38] | 5 studies · 780 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Technical success (> 5 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs radiofrequency ablation (RFA) | OR 0.85 [0.3, 2.41] | 1 study · 291 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Recurrence (< 5 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs radiofrequency ablation (RFA) | OR 1.53 [0.78, 2.99] | 1 study · 291 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Long‐term recurrence (> 5 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs radiofrequency ablation (RFA) | OR 2.77 [1.52, 5.06] | 1 study · 291 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Complications (up to 8 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs radiofrequency ablation (RFA) | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
QoL (up to 8 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs radiofrequency ablation (RFA) | no estimate extracted | NR | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) compared to ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) for great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence
Population: people with GSV incompetence
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Technical success (< 5 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) | OR 6.13 [0.98, 38.27] | 3 studies · 588 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Technical success (> 5 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) | OR 6.47 [2.6, 16.1] | 3 studies · 534 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Recurrence (< 5 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) | OR 0.68 [0.2, 2.36] | 2 studies · 443 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Long‐term recurrence (> 5 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) | OR 1.08 [0.4, 2.87] | 2 studies · 418 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Complications (up to 8 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
QoL (up to 8 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) | no estimate extracted | NR | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) compared to SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) for great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence
Population: people with GSV incompetence
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Technical success (< 5 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | OR 2.31 [1.27, 4.23] | 6 studies · 1051 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Technical success (> 5 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | OR 0.93 [0.57, 1.5] | 5 studies · 874 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Recurrence (< 5 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | OR 0.78 [0.47, 1.29] | 7 studies · 1459 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Long‐term recurrence (> 5 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | OR 1.09 [0.68, 1.76] | 7 studies · 1267 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Complications (up to 8 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
QoL (up to 8 years) Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | no estimate extracted | NR | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) compared to mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) for great saphenous vein incompetence
Population: people with GSV incompetence
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Technical success (< 5 years) Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) | OR 1.76 [0.06, 54.15] | 3 studies · 435 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Technical success (> 5 years) Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Recurrence (< 5 years) Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) | OR 1 [0.21, 4.81] | 3 studies · 389 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Long‐term recurrence (≥ 5 years) Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Complications (up to 1 year) Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, publication bias |
QoL (AVVQ, EQ‐5D) (up to 1 year) Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) | no estimate extracted | NR | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) compared to SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) for great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence
Population: people with GSV incompetence
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Technical success (< 5 years) Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | OR 5.71 [0.64, 50.81] | 2 studies · 318 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Technical success (> 5 years) Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | OR 0.88 [0.29, 2.69] | 1 study · 289 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Recurrence (< 5 years) Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | OR 0.93 [0.58, 1.51] | 4 studies · 546 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Long‐term recurrence (> 5 years) Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | OR 0.41 [0.22, 0.75] | 1 study · 289 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Complications (up to 8 years) Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
QoL (up to 8 years) Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | no estimate extracted | NR | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) compared to SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) for great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence
Population: people with GSV incompetence
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Technical success (< 5 years) Ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | OR 0.32 [0.11, 0.94] | 4 studies · 954 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Technical success (> 5 years) Ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | OR 0.09 [0.03, 0.3] | 3 studies · 525 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Recurrence (< 5 years) Ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | OR 1.81 [0.87, 3.77] | 3 studies · 822 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Long‐term recurrence (≥ 5 years) Ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | OR 1.24 [0.57, 2.71] | 3 studies · 639 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Complications (up to 8 years) Ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 639 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, publication bias |
QoL (up to 8 years) Ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) vs SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 930 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |