Surgical management of great saphenous vein varicose veins: A meta-analysis

Purpose The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to synthesise the available evidence of randomised controlled trials comparing endovenous laser therapy to traditional open surgery, high ligation and stripping, for the treatment of great saphenous vein varicose veins in terms of clinical effectiveness, patient satisfaction and peri-operative complications. Methods MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were searched to identify eligible studies. All randomised controlled trials comparing endovenous laser therapy to high ligation and stripping that used ultrasound examination as an outcome measure and had follow up of one year or more were included. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias was also used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were used as the measure of effect for each dichotomous outcome. Findings Nine eligible publications relating to six randomised controlled trials were identified. The total enrolment of the studies was 1289 limbs. The clinical efficacy of endovenous laser therapy is comparable to that of surgery in the relatively short follow up period described in the studies. Meta-analysis revealed a trend towards a higher risk of ultrasound recurrence after endovenous laser therapy at 12 months. Quality of life questionnaires reveal similar outcomes for endovenous laser therapy and surgery. There is low quality evidence to suggest surgery is associated with more pain, sensory complications and infection. Conclusion Endovenous laser therapy is a safe alternative to traditional open surgery. There is some weak evidence to suggest that endovenous laser therapy has a higher risk of ultrasound-detected recurrence at 12 months following treatment compared to open surgery. However, it may be associated with less sensory complications, pigmentation and infection.