Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Nov 29;11(11):CD010878.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010878.pub2.

Endovenous ablation therapy (laser or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for short saphenous varicose veins

Sharath Chandra Vikram Paravastu  1 , Margaret Horne, P Dominic F Dodd
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Endovenous ablation therapy (laser or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for short saphenous varicose veins

Sharath Chandra Vikram Paravastu et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Short (or small) saphenous vein (SSV) varices occur as a result of an incompetent sapheno-popliteal junction, where the SSV joins the popliteal vein, resulting in reflux in the SSV; they account for about 15% of varicose veins. Untreated varicose veins may sometimes lead to ulceration of the leg, which is difficult to manage. Traditionally, treatment was restricted to surgery or conservative management. Since the 1990s, however, a number of minimally invasive techniques have been developed; these do not normally require a general anaesthetic, are day-case procedures with a quicker return to normal activities and avoid the risk of wound infection which may occur following surgery. Nerve injury remains a risk with thermal ablation, but in cases where it does occur, the injury tends to be transient.

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) versus conventional surgery in the treatment of SSV varices.

Search methods: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (last searched 17 March 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2). We searched clinical trials databases for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.

Selection criteria: We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EVLA, endovenous RFA or UGFS with conventional surgery in the treatment of SSV varices for inclusion.

Data collection and analysis: We independently reviewed, assessed and selected trials that met the inclusion criteria; any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We extracted data and used the Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. When the data permitted, we performed either fixed-effect meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or random-effects meta-analyses where there was moderate to significant heterogeneity.

Main results: We identified three RCTs, all of which compared EVLA with surgery; one also compared UGFS with surgery. There were no trials comparing RFA with surgery. The EVLA versus surgery comparison included 311 participants: 185 received EVLA and 126 received surgery. In the UGFS comparison, each treatment group contained 21 people. For several outcomes in the EVLA comparison, only a single study provided relevant data; as a result, the current review is limited in its ability to demonstrate meaningful results for some planned outcomes. The quality of evidence according to GRADE was moderate to low for the outcome measures in the EVLA versus surgery comparison, but low for the UGFS versus surgery comparison. Reasons for downgrading in the EVLA versus surgery comparison were risk of bias (for some outcomes, the outcome assessors were not blinded; and in one study the EVLA-surgery allocation of 2:1 did not appear to be prespecified); imprecision (data were only available from a single small study and the CIs were relatively wide); indirectness (one trial reported results at six months rather than one year and was inadequately powered for SSV varices-only analysis). Reasons for downgrading in the UGFS versus surgery comparison were imprecision (only one trial offered UGFS and several participants were missing from the analysis) and a limitation in design (the study was inadequately powered for SSV participants alone).For the EVLA versus surgery comparison, recanalisation or persistence of reflux at six weeks occurred less frequently in the EVLA group than in the surgery group (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; I2 = 51%; 289 participants, 3 studies, moderate-quality evidence). Recurrence of reflux at one year was also less frequent in the EVLA group than in the surgery group (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.77; I2 = 0%; 119 participants, 2 studies, low-quality evidence). For the outcome clinical evidence of recurrence (i.e. presence of new visible varicose veins) at one year, there was no difference between the two treatment groups (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.75; 99 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). Four participants each in the EVLA and surgery groups required reintervention due to technical failure (99 participants, 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). There was no difference between the two treatment groups for disease-specific quality of life (QoL) (Aberdeen Varicose Veins Questionnaire) either at six weeks (mean difference (MD) 0.15, 95% CI -1.65 to 1.95; I2 = 0%; 265 participants, 2 studies, moderate-quality evidence), or at one year (MD -1.08, 95% CI -3.39 to 1.23; 99 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). Main complications reported at six weeks were sural nerve injury, wound infection and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (one DVT case in each treatment group; EVLA: 1/161, 0.6%; surgery 1/104, 1%; 265 participants, 2 studies, moderate-quality evidence).For the UGFS versus surgery comparison, there were insufficient data to detect clear differences between the two treatment groups for the two outcomes recanalisation or persistence of reflux at six weeks (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.10; 33 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence), and recurrence of reflux at one year (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.29 to 4.92; 31 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). No other outcomes could be reported for this comparison because the study data were not stratified according to saphenous vein.

Authors' conclusions: Moderate- to low-quality evidence exists to suggest that recanalisation or persistence of reflux at six weeks and recurrence of reflux at one year are less frequent when EVLA is performed, compared with conventional surgery. For the UGFS versus conventional surgery comparison, the quality of evidence is assessed to be low; consequently, the effectiveness of UGFS compared with conventional surgery in the treatment of SSV varices is uncertain. Further RCTs for all comparisons are required with longer follow-up (at least five years). In addition, measurement of outcomes such as recurrence of reflux, time taken to return to work, duration of procedure, pain, etc., and choice of time points during follow-up should be standardised such that future trials evaluating newer technologies can be compared efficiently.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

SP: none known.

MH: none known.

PDD is a director of Vasacare Ltd, a specialist vascular services provider. He has received sponsorship to attend proprietary training in the use of ClariVein mechano‐chemical ablation and VenaSeal (Sapheon Inc) vein adhesive.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010878

References

References to studies included in this review

CLASS {published data only}
    1. Brittenden J. Randomised controlled trial comparing foam sclerotherapy, alone or in combination with endovenous laser therapy, with conventional surgery as a treatment for varicose veins (ISRCTN 51995477). www.controlled‐trials.com/ISRCTN51995477 Date first received: 25 February 2008.
    1. Brittenden J, Cotton SC, Elders A, Ramsay CR, Norrie J, Burr J, et al. A randomized trial comparing treatments for varicose veins. New England Journal of Medicine 2014;371(13):1218‐27. - PubMed
    1. Brittenden J, Cotton SC, Elders A, Tassie E, Scotland G, Ramsay CR, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation and surgery for varicose veins: results from the Comparison of LAser, Surgery and foam Sclerotherapy (CLASS) randomised controlled trial. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England) 2015;19(27):1‐341. - PMC - PubMed
    1. ISRCTN51995477. The CLASS study. Comparison of LAser, Surgery and foam Sclerotherapy. Research protocol (Protocol 09PRT/2275; EudraCT 2008‐001069‐26) Randomised controlled trial comparing foam sclerotherapy, alone or in combination with endovenous laser therapy, with conventional surgery as a treatment for varicose veins. NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/51448/PRO‐06‐45‐02.pdf (accessed 12 July 2016).
    1. Tassie E, Scotland G, Brittenden J, Cotton SC, Elders A, Campbell MK, et al. Cost‐effectiveness of ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation or surgery as treatment for primary varicose veins from the randomized CLASS trial. British Journal of Surgery 2014;101:1532‐40. - PubMed
HELP 2 {published data only}
    1. ISRCTN56883670. EVLT for sapheno‐popliteal incompetence and SS reflux: a RCT. www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56883670 Date first received: 29 September 2006.
    1. NCT00841178. Endovenous laser therapy (EVLT) for sapheno‐popliteal incompetence and short saphenous vein (SSV) reflux: a RCT. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00841178 Date first received: 10 February 2009.
    1. Nandhra S, El‐Sheikha J, Carradice D, Wallace T, Souroullas P, Samuel N, et al. A randomized clinical trial of endovenous laser ablation versus conventional surgery for small saphenous varicose veins. Journal of Vascular Surgery 2015;61(3):741‐6. - PubMed
    1. Samuel N, Carradice D, Mekako AI, Wallace T, Hatfield J, Chetter IC. Randomised trial of endovenous laser ablation versus surgery for small saphenous varicose veins. The Vascular Society of Great Britain & Ireland Yearbook 2011 2011:82.
    1. Samuel N, Carradice D, Wallace T, Mekako A, Hatfield J, Chetter I. Randomized clinical trial of endovenous laser ablation versus conventional surgery for small saphenous varicose veins. Annals of Surgery 2013;257(3):419‐26. - PubMed
VESPA {published data only}
    1. NTR1554. VESPA trial: endovenous laser treatment versus crossectomy of the small saphenous vein. www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1554 Date first received: 24 November 2008.
    1. Roopram AD, Lind MY, Brussel JP, Terlouw‐Punt LC, Birnie E, Smet AA, et al. Endovenous laser ablation versus conventional surgery in the treatment of small saphenous vein incompetence. Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders 2013;1(4):357‐63. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Ariyoshi 1996 {published data only}
    1. Ariyoshi H, Kambayashi J‐I, Tominaga S, Hatanaka T. The possible risk of lower‐limb sclerotherapy causing an extended hypercoagulable state. Surgery Today 1996;26(5):323‐7. - PubMed
Beale 2005 {published data only}
    1. Beale R, Theivacumar N, Mavor AID, Gough MJ. Endovenous laser treatment (EVLT) or surgery of varicose veins? A randomised controlled trial in patients with saphenofemoral and long saphenous incompetence. Yearbook 2005, The Vascular Society of Great Britain & Ireland. 2005:Abstract 77.
Campos 2015 {published data only}
    1. Campos W, Torres IO, Silva ES, Casella IB, Puech‐Leao P. A prospective randomized study comparing polidocanol foam sclerotherapy with surgical treatment of patients with primary chronic venous insufficiency and ulcer. Annals of Vascular Surgery 2015;29(6):1128‐35. - PubMed
Chant 1972 {published data only}
    1. Beresford SAA, Chant ADB, Jones HO, Piachaud D, Weddell JM. Varicose veins: a comparison of surgery and injection/compression sclerotherapy. Lancet 1978;1(8070):921‐4. - PubMed
    1. Chant ADB, Jones HO, Weddell JM. Varicose veins: a comparison of surgery and injection/compression sclerotherapy. Lancet 1972;2:1188‐91. - PubMed
    1. Piachaud D, Weddell JM. The economics of treating varicose veins. International Journal of Epidemiology 1972;1(3):287‐94. - PubMed
Compagna 2010 {published data only}
    1. Compagna R, Vito D, Rossi R, Fappiano F, Magistris L, Sodano L, et al. A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing foam sclerotherapy combined with sapheno‐femoral ligation to surgical treatment of varicose veins. European Surgical Research 2010;45(3‐4):267.
Doran 1975 {published data only}
    1. Doran FSA, White M. A clinical trial designed to discover if the primary treatment of varicose veins should be by Fegan's method or by an operation. British Journal of Surgery 1975;62:72‐6. - PubMed
Einarsson 1993 {published data only}
    1. Einarsson E, Eklof B, Neglén P. Sclerotherapy or surgery as treatment for varicose veins: a prospective randomized study. Phlebology 1993;8:22‐6.
    1. Neglén P, Einarsson E, Eklof B. The functional long‐term value of different types of treatment for saphenous vein incompetence. Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 1993;34:295‐301. - PubMed
Figueiredo 2009 {published data only}
    1. Figueiredo M, Araujo S, Barros N Jr, Miranda F Jr. Results of surgical treatment compared with ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy in patients with varicose veins: a prospective randomised study. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2009;38(6):758‐63. - PubMed
Flessenkamper 2012 {published data only}
    1. Flessenkamper I, Stenger D, Hartmann M, Roll S. Saphenofemorale neoreflux after endovenous laser therapy, high ligation/stripping or high ligation/laser therapy. Interim results of a prospective randomized controlled multicentre trial [Saphenofemoraler neoreflux nach lasertherapie, crossektomie/stripping oder crossektomie/ lasertherapie. Interimsergebnisse einer prospektiven randomisierten Multizenterstudie]. Phlebologie 2012;41(6):289‐94.
HELP 1 {published data only}
    1. Carradice D, Mekako A, Hatfield J, Chetter I. Recurrent varicose veins are more common following surgery than EVLT ‐ results of a randomised controlled trial. The Vascular Society of Great Britain & Ireland Yearbook 2009. 2009:86.
    1. Carradice D, Mekako AI, Hatfield J, Chetter IC. A randomised trial of EVLT vs surgery for varicose veins. The Vascular Society of Great Britain & Ireland Yearbook 2008. 2008:91.
    1. Carradice D, Wallace T, Gohil R, Chetter I. A comparison of the effectiveness of treating those with and without the complications of superficial venous insufficiency. Annals of Surgery 2014;260(2):396‐401. - PubMed
    1. Carradice D, Wallace T, Samuel N, Gohil R, Chetter I. A comparison of the effectiveness of treating those with and without the complications of superficial venous insufficiency. Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland Annual General Meeting. 2012:38.
Hobbs 1974 {published data only}
    1. Hobbs JT. Surgery and sclerotherapy in the treatment of varicose veins. A random trial. Archives of Surgery 1974;109:793‐6. - PubMed
    1. Hobbs JT. Surgery or sclerotherapy for varicose veins. 10 year results of a random trial. In: Tesi M, Dormandy JA editor(s). Superficial and Deep Venous Diseases of the Lower Limbs / Surgical Therapy. Turin: Panminerva Medica, 1984:243‐8.
    1. Hobbs JT. The treatment of varicose veins. A random trial of injection‐compression therapy versus surgery. British Journal of Surgery 1968;55(10):777‐80. - PubMed
ISRCTN06552809 {published data only}
    1. ISRCTN06552809. VNUS vs ClariVein for varicose veins. www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN06552809 Date first received: 22 July 2012.
ISRCTN08060326 {published data only}
    1. ISRCTN08060326. Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radio frequency (RF), foam sclerotherapy and stripping for treatment of varicose veins. www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN08060326 Date first received: 31 July 2009.
Iwamoto 2003 {published data only}
    1. Iwamoto S, Ikeda M, Kawasaki T, Monden M. Treatment of varicose veins: an assessment of intraoperative and postoperative compression sclerotherapy. Annals of Vascular Surgery 2003;17(3):290‐5. - PubMed
Jakobsen 1979 {published data only}
    1. Jakobsen BH. The value of different forms of treatment for varicose veins. British Journal of Surgery 1979;66:182‐4. - PubMed
Kalodiki 2012 {published data only}
    1. Kalodiki E, Lattimer CR, Azzam M, Shawish E, Bountouroglou D, Geroulakos G. Long‐term results of a randomized controlled trial on ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy combined with saphenofemoral ligation vs standard surgery for varicose veins. Journal of Vascular Surgery 2012;55(2):451‐7. - PubMed
Liu 2011 {published data only}
    1. Liu P, Ren S, Yang Y, Liu J, Ye Z, Lin F. Intravenous catheter‐guided laser ablation: a novel alternative for branch varicose veins. International Surgery 2011;96(4):331‐6. - PubMed
MESSI trial 2014 {published data only}
    1. Boersma D, Eekeren RR, Kelder HJ, Werson DA, Holewijn S, Schreve MA, et al. Mechanochemical endovenous ablation versus radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of primary small saphenous vein insufficiency (MESSI trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014;15:421. [DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-421] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Ogawa 2008 {published data only}
    1. Ogawa T, Hoshino S, Makimura S, Shigematsu H, Azuma N, Sasajima T, et al. Endovenous laser ablation compared with stripping ‐ multicenter RCT in Japan. American Venous Forum Annual Meeting; 2008 Feb; Charleston, SC, USA. 2008.
REACTIV trial 2006 {published data only}
    1. Michaels JA, Campbell WB, Brazier JE, MacIntyre JB, Palfreyman SJ, Ratcliffe J, et al. Randomised clinical trial, observational study and assessment of cost‐effectiveness of the treatment of varicose veins (REACTIV trial). Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England) 2006;10(13):1‐196. - PubMed
Seddon 1973 {published data only}
    1. Seddon J. The management of varicose veins. British Journal of Surgery 1973;60(5):345‐7. - PubMed
Shouler 1989 {published data only}
    1. Shouler PJ, Runchman PC. Varicose veins: optimum compression after surgery and sclerotherapy. Annal of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 1989;71:402‐4. - PMC - PubMed
VEDICO trial 1998 {published data only}
    1. Belcaro G, Cesarone MR, Renzo A, Brandolini R, Coen L, Acerbi G, et al. Foam‐sclerotherapy, surgery, sclerotherapy, and combined treatment for varicose veins: a 10‐year, prospective, randomized, controlled, trial (VEDICO trial). Angiology 2003;54(3):307‐15. - PubMed
    1. Belcaro G, Christopoulos D, Vasdekis S. Treatment of superficial venous incompetence with the SAVAS technique. (Section ambulatoire des varices avec sclerotherapie). A four year randomised, controlled trial comparing venous hemodynamic and costing after SAVAS, sclerotherapy and the dentist's technique. Journal des Maladies Vasculaires 1991;16:23‐7. - PubMed
    1. Belcaro G, Dugall M, Vasdekis S, Christopoulos D, Laurora G, Nicolaides AN, et al. Comparison between endovascular sclerotherapy, surgery and surgery plus sclerotherapy in the treatment of superficial vein insufficiency. A randomized study on 10 years follow‐up. Angeiologie 1998;50(1):57‐61.
    1. Belcaro G, Nicolaides AN, Ricci A, Dugall M, Errichi BM, Vasdekis S, et al. Endovascular sclerotherapy, surgery, and surgery plus sclerotherapy in superficial venous incompetence: a randomized, 10‐year follow‐up trial ‐ final results. Angiology 2000;51(7):529‐34. - PubMed
Wilhelmi 2009 {published data only}
    1. Wilhelmi M, Hoch A, Hoch W, Pichlmaier AM, Teebken OE, Bisdas T, et al. Effectiveness and clinical outcome following endovenous therapy of primary varicose veins: first results of a randomised, prospective study comparing the VNUS closure fast system, 980nm and 1470nm lasers and conventional surgery. XVI World Congress of the Union Internationale de Phlebologie Abstract Book. 2009.
Wright 2006 {published data only}
    1. Wright D. European randomized controlled trial of Varisolve® PD microfoam compared with alternative therapy in management of moderate‐to‐severe varicose veins: preliminary results. UIP World Congress Chapter Meeting; 2003 Aug 27‐31; San Diego, CA. 2003.
    1. Wright D, Gobin JP, Bradbury AW, Coleridge‐Smith P, Spoelstra H, Berridge D, et al. Varisolve polidocanol microfoam compared with surgery or sclerotherapy in the management of varicose veins in the presence of trunk vein incompetence: European randomized controlled trial. Phlebology 2006;21(4):180‐90.

References to studies awaiting assessment

Boisseau 2015 {published data only}
    1. Boisseau M. A randomized trial comparing treatments for varicose veins. Angeiologie 2015;66:60‐1.

Additional references

Almgren 1990
    1. Almgren B, Eriksson I. Valvular incompetence in superficial, deep and perforator veins of limbs with varicose veins. Acta Chirugica Scandinavica 1990;156(1):69‐74. - PubMed
Brar 2010
    1. Brar R, Nordon IM, Hinchliffe RJ, Loftus IM, Thompson MM. Surgical management of varicose veins: meta‐analysis. Vascular 2010;18(4):205‐20. - PubMed
Carroll 2014
    1. Carroll C, Hummel S, Leaviss J, Ren S, Stevens JW, Cantrell A, et al. Systematic review, network meta‐analysis and exploratory cost‐effectiveness model of randomized trials of minimally invasive techniques versus surgery for varicose veins. British Journal of Surgery 2014;101:1040‐52. - PubMed
GRADE Working Group 2004
    1. GRADE Working Group 2004. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490‐4. - PMC - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT 2015 [Computer program]
    1. GRADEpro GDT. GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool (GRADEpro GDT). Hamilton (ON): GRADE Working Group, McMaster University, 2015.
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org.
Hoggan 2009
    1. Hoggan BL, Cameron AL, Maddern JJ. Systematic review of endovenous laser therapy versus surgery for the treatment of saphenous varicose veins. Annals of Vascular Surgery 2009;23:277‐87. - PubMed
Langendam 2013
    1. Langendam M, Akl EA, Dahm P, Glasziou P, Guyatt G, Schünemann HJ. Assessing and presenting summaries of evidence in Cochrane Reviews. Systematic Reviews 2013;2:81. - PMC - PubMed
Leopardi 2009
    1. Leopardi D, Hoggan BL, Fitridge RA, Woodruff PWH, Maddern GJ. Systematic review of treatments for varicose veins. Annals of Vascular Surgery 2009;23:264‐76. - PubMed
Luebke 2008
    1. Luebke T, Brunkwall J. Systematic review and meta‐analysis of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration, endovenous laser therapy, and foam sclerotherapy for primary varicosis. Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2008;49:213‐33. - PubMed
Murad 2011
    1. Murad MH, Coto‐Yglesias F, Zumaeta‐Garcia M, Elamin MB, Duggirala MK, Erwin PJ, et al. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the treatments of varicose veins. Journal of Vascular Surgery 2011;53:49S‐65S. - PubMed
Nelzén 2015
    1. Nelzén O, Cervin A, Daxberg E‐L, Drott C, Gelin J, Persson J, et al. Endovenous interventions on varicose veins of the leg [Endovenösa interventioner mot åderbråck]. Göteborg: Västra Götalandsregionen, Sahlgrenska Universitetssjukhuset, HTA‐centrum. Regional activity‐based HTA 2015; Vol. 77.
Nesbitt 2014
    1. Nesbitt C, Bedenis R, Bhattacharya V, Stansby G. Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus open surgery for great saphenous vein varices. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005624.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
NICE 2013
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Varicose veins in the legs. The diagnosis and management of varicose veins [CG168], 2013. www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/14226/64566/64566.pdf (accessed 14 August 2013). - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Rigby 2009
    1. Rigby KA, Palfreyman SSJ, Beverley C, Michaels JA. Surgery versus sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicose veins. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004980] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Sam 2004
    1. Sam RC, Silverman SH, Bradbury AW. Nerve injuries and varicose vein surgery. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2004;27(2):113‐20. - PubMed
Siribumrungwong 2012
    1. Siribumrungwong B, Noorit P, Wilasrusmee C, Attia J, Thakkinstian A. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing endovenous ablation and surgical intervention in patients with varicose vein. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2012;44:214‐23. - PubMed
Tellings 2011
    1. Tellings SS, Ceulen RP, Sommer A. Surgery and endovenous techniques for the treatment of small saphenous varicose veins: a review of the literature. Phlebology 2011;26(5):179‐84. - PubMed
van den Bos 2009
    1. Bos R, Arends L, Kockaert M, Neumann M, Nijsten T. Endovenous therapies of lower extremity varicosities: a meta‐analysis. Journal of Vascular Surgery 2009;49:230‐9. - PubMed
Winterborn 2004
    1. Winterborn RJ, Campbell WB, Heather BP, Earnshaw JJ. The management of short saphenous varicose veins: a survey of the members of the vascular surgical society of Great Britain and Ireland. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2004;28(4):400‐3. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Paravastu 2013
    1. Paravastu SCV, Dodd PDF. Endovenous ablation therapy (LASER or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for short saphenous varicose veins. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010878] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources