Comparison of cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of varicose veins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review clinical outcomes of varicose vein patients treated with cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation at our institution. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation during a three-year period. Patient records were reviewed to assess demographics, location and severity of disease, treatment details and outcome at short- and mid-term follow-ups. Outcome parameters included treatment success and complications. RESULTS: Between January 2014 and December 2016, 335 patients with 476 veins were treated with either cyanoacrylate embolization (n = 148) or radiofrequency ablation (n = 328) at the Vancouver General Hospital Vascular Surgery Vein Clinic. The average age of patients were 57 ± 1 years with the majority being female (78%) and an average BMI of 24.8 ± 0.5. CEAP classes were 2 (49%), 3 (26%), 4a (22%) and >4b (3%). Of the veins treated with cyanoacrylate embolization, the vein types were as follows: 76% were great saphenous vein, 16% were small saphenous vein, 5% were anterior accessory great saphenous vein and 1.4% were perforator veins. The vein types for radiofrequency ablation were 88%, 9%, 3% and 0%, respectively. The average amount of cyanoacrylate embolization delivered for great saphenous vein treatment was 1.8 ± 0.1 ml with a treatment length of 43 ± 1 cm. Subgroup comparison was done for great saphenous vein segments. Treatment success was 100% in cyanoacrylate embolization and 99% in radiofrequency ablation. Superficial phlebitis was the most common complication noted at mid-term follow-up in 5% of cyanoacrylate embolization and 16% of radiofrequency ablation treatments (P < 0.05). One patient in each group had asymptomatic proximal thrombus extension treated with anticoagulation for 2-3 weeks. Three superficial infections from glue clumps were noted in the cyanoacrylate embolization group requiring excision and drainage. Five patients in the radiofrequency ablation group had persistent numbness and one wound complications at the access site. CONCLUSION: Cyanoacrylate embolization offers equivalent success rates with lower mid-term complication rates as radiofrequency ablation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".