The use of high venous ligation as an adjunct to endovenous therapy in the management of great saphenous vein incompetence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background In recent years, endovenous intervention has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to open venous surgery. However, endovenous intervention does not formally disconnect the deep and superficial venous systems and it is hypothesized that recurrence may be greater in the absence of high venous ligation. This study aims to compare the efficacy of a hybrid endovenous approach with adjuvant high venous ligation and standard operative intervention in the management of great saphenous incompetence. Methods In March 2018, Medline and Embase were systematically searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. All randomized controlled trials comparing a hybrid approach with standard operative intervention were included. Studies were required to include at least one pre-defined outcome. Data were extracted and assessed by two independent reviewers. Pooled risk ratios were calculated using a random effects model. Additional subgroup analyses were performed. Results Eight randomized controlled trials including 1244 patients were analysed. Pooled standardized data revealed no difference in overall recurrence (pooled RR = 1.00 [95% CI = 0.57, 1.77]), major operative morbidity (RR = 0.43 [95% CI = 0.06, 2.89]), or re-interventions (RR = 0.94 [95% CI = 0.12, 7.24]) for the hybrid group compared with standard operative intervention alone. Subgroup analysis revealed comparable short-, medium- and long-term recurrence rates between both cohorts. Furthermore, no difference in recurrence was identified when the hybrid approach was compared to open surgery alone (RR = 1.01 [95% CI = 0.63, 1.61]) or endovenous monotherapy (RR = 0.67 [95% CI = 0.04, 12.24]). Conclusion The use of a hybrid approach in the management of great saphenous incompetence appears to offer no recurrence, re-intervention or morbidity benefit when compared to standard operative intervention.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.