Advanced Search

Home > Journals > International Angiology > Past Issues > Articles online first > International Angiology 2015 Sep 29



A Journal on Angiology

Official Journal of the International Union of Angiology, the International Union of Phlebology and the Central European Vascular Forum
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,899

Frequency: Bi-Monthly

ISSN 0392-9590

Online ISSN 1827-1839


International Angiology 2015 Sep 29

Endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein comparing 1920-nm and 1470-nm diode laser

Mendes-Pinto D. 1, Bastianetto P. 1, Cavalcanti Braga Lyra L. 1, Kikuchi R. 2, Kabnick L. 3

1 Department of Vascular Surgery, Children ABC Hospital, Mater Dei Hospital and VascularBH Institute, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil;
2 Vascular Excellence Clinic, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil;
3 Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Langone Medical Center, New York University

AIM OF THE STUDY: Compare venous occlusion rates at a one-year follow-up comparing 1920-nm versus 1470-nm endolaser.
METHODS: Randomized prospective study with consecutive patients with varicose veins associated to great saphenous reflux. The 1470-nm laser ablation was performed in continuous mode, with power of 10 W, while for the 1920-nm it was set in 5 W. Follow-up data were collected at the 7-day, 30-day, 3-month, 6-month and 1-year visits, and involved clinical, ultrasound evaluation and measurement of occlusion lenght.
RESULTS: Sixty seven patients were included, with 42 limbs operated in the 1470-nm group and 48 limbs in the 1920-nm group. There were no differences in relation to age, CEAP (Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomical and Pathological Classification) , VCSS (Venous Clinical Severity Score) and saphenous diameter. The resulting LEED in 1920-nm group was 17.8 ± 0.6 J/cm and vs 24.7 ± 0.8 J/cm in 1470-nm group (P<0.01). Closure rates were lower for the 1920-nm group: 90.9% vs 96.8% (P=0.06) at 30 days, 87.5% vs. 96.3% at 6 months (P=0.03), and 87.5% vs. 94.7% (P=0.05) at one year. The 1920-nm group had less ecchymosis (18.7% vs 52.4%), induration (12.4% vs 38.1%) and days of analgesic use (1.4 ± 0.2 vs. 2.4 ± 0.4). CEAP and VCSS were reduced over time in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Treatment with endolaser 1920-nm was feasible and with reduced complications. The use of low endoluminal energy resulted in lower vein occlusion rates comparing to the 1470-nn laser. Clinical outcome scores were similar between groups.

language: English


top of page