Prospective randomized trial comparing radiofrequency ablation and complete saphenous vein stripping in patients with mild to moderate chronic venous disease with a 3-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of the radiofrequency thermoablation of the saphenous vein with the ligation technique, and complete removal of the saphenous vein, from the saphenofemoral junction to the ankle. METHODS: A total of 49 patients with chronic venous disease in the Comprehensive Classification System for Chronic Venous Disorders (CEAP) classes 2 to 4 for clinical signs, etiology, anatomic distribution and pathophysiology, were assessed at baseline, after 4 weeks, and after 1 year. The parameters assessed were complications, period of absence from activities, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) and quality of life scores according to Aberdeen Varicose Veins Questionnaire (AVVQ). They were re-examined 1 and 3 years after treatment to evaluate recurrence rates. RESULTS: The success rate per limb (p=0.540), VCSS (p=0.636), AVVQ (p=0.163), and clinical complications were similar in the two treatment groups. Nevertheless, the radiofrequency thermoablation group had significant shorter length of hospital stay (0.69±0.47) and absence from activities (8.62±4.53), p<000.1. CONCLUSION: Patients submitted to radiofrequency thermoablation had an occlusion rate, clinical recurrence and improvement in quality of life comparable to removal of the saphenous vein. However, these patients spent less time hospitalized and away from their daily activities during recovering.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".