To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Treatment of varicose veins is currently performed by different interventionist alternatives that include surgical, endothermal and non-thermal ablation therapies. The main guidelines recommended endovenous thermal treatment as the first choice therapy; however present side effects related to thermal energy. Non-tumescent endovenous ablation techniques such as cyanoacrylate ablation (CA) started to develop to avoid these problems. The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness and safety of CA for saphenous vein incompetence.
A systematic review with meta-analysis was carried out. The search of scientific literature was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, CDR, WoS and Scopus databases. GRADE methodology was used to assess the quality of the evidence and Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess methodological quality of randomized control trials (RCT). Pooled risk ratio was calculated using a random effects model.
Two RCTs and one non-RCT comprising 1,077 participants were included. Additionally, 10 case series were included for safety assessment. Pooled analysis of closure rates by the two RCTs indicated there were not significant differences between CA and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or endovenous laser ablation (EVLA). Improvements in venous clinical severity score were reported by all comparative studies without significant differences among groups. The most frequently reported adverse events were ecchymosis, phlebitis, paraesthesia, and thrombosis. The pooled analysis showed significant differences only in ecchymosis rates, with lower probability of ecchymosis in CA groups. CA treatment showed lower pain rates and shorter intervention times and recovery compared to endothermal therapies.
The effectiveness of CA devices in the treatment of varicose veins is comparable to EVLA and RFA, while the rates of adverse effects are lower. Despite the limitations of the evidence, CA may be a promising alternative to existing treatments, with the advantages of better patient comfort.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.