Along with invagination and cryostripping we are performing in our clinic the radiofrequency obliteration since 1998. Aim: The present prospective randomized study is aiming to assess the possible advantages of the radiofrequency obliteration. Patients, methods: Initiated in 2001, 20 patients were allocated in each of the three study groups: invagination stripping (ST), cryostripping (KR), and radiofrequency obliteration (RA). Surgery was performed by the some operator. A second investigator was performing post operative duplex ultrasound examination at 12 hours, 1, 2 and 6 weeks. The postoperative assessment included quality of life assessment (CIVIQ2 QoL questionnaire), pain measurements (VAS), return to routine activity and return to work duration. Results: For both QoL score (median: ST 7.9; KR 17.13; RA 2.78; p = 0.012) and pain assessment (median: ST 7.5; KR 10.6; RA 4.6; p = 0.014), the radiofrequency obliteration group showed statistically significant better results. The difference was the most significant at the one week follow-up examination. Concerning the return to work (p = 0.007) and return to routine activity duration (p = 0.021) as well as for all other assessed criteria, the radiofrequency obliteration group showed superiority, most significant when compared to the cryostripping results. Conclusion: Postoperative pain, quality of life and convalescence duration ore essential criteria for the patient's choice of the procedure. Therefore, radiofrequency obliteration is a precious alternative for the operative approach in future.     «

Along with invagination and cryostripping we are performing in our clinic the radiofrequency obliteration since 1998. Aim: The present prospective randomized study is aiming to assess the possible advantages of the radiofrequency obliteration. Patients, methods: Initiated in 2001, 20 patients were allocated in each of the three study groups: invagination stripping (ST), cryostripping (KR), and radiofrequency obliteration (RA). Surgery was performed by the some operator. A second investigator was...     »