Endovenous Microwave Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Lower Limb Varicose Veins

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to retrospectively compare the clinical outcomes of endovenous microwave versus radiofrequency ablation combined with foam sclerotherapy in patients with lower limb varicose veins.

Methods

We identified patients with lower limb varicose veins treated with endovenous microwave ablation or radiofrequency ablation with foam sclerotherapy between January 2018 and June 2021 at our institution. Patients were followed-up for 12 months. Clinical results, including the pre- and post-Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire and Venous Clinical Severity Score, were compared. Complications were documented and treated accordingly.

Results

We included 287 cases (295 limbs total; endovenous microwave ablation + foam sclerosing agent: n=142, 146 limbs; radiofrequency ablation + foam sclerosing agent: n=145, 149 limbs). The operative time was shorter for endovenous microwave ablation than radiofrequency ablation (42.58 ± 15.62 min vs. 65.46 ± 24.38 min, P < 0.05); however, other procedural parameters did not differ. Furthermore, hospitalization costs for endovenous microwave ablation were lower than those for radiofrequency ablation (21,063.74 ± 850.47 yuan vs. 23,312.40 ± 1035.86 yuan, P < 0.05). At the 12-month follow-up, the great saphenous vein closure rate was similar in both groups (endovenous microwave ablation, 97% [142/146] vs. radiofrequency ablation, 98% [146/149]; P > 0.05). Additionally, the satisfaction or incidence rates of complications were not different among the groups. In both groups, the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire and Venous Clinical Severity Score values were significantly lower 12 months post-surgery than before surgery; however, the postoperative values did not differ.

Conclusion

Endovenous microwave ablation effectively treated lower limb varicose veins, with similar short-term effects as radiofrequency ablation. Moreover, it had a shorter operative time and was less expensive than endovenous radiofrequency ablation.