Klem Taco M A L, Schnater J Marco, Schütte P Ronald, Hop Wim, van der Ham Arie C, Wittens Cornelis H A
Department of Vascular Surgery of Sint Franciscus Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J Vasc Surg. 2009 Feb;49(2):403-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.09.016. Epub 2008 Nov 22.
This multicenter randomized clinical trial compared cryo stripping of the great saphenous vein (GSV) with conventional stripping.
The study randomized 494 patients with symptomatic (CEAP) clinical severity class 2 to 4 to cryo stripping (n = 249) or conventional stripping (n = 245). The primary outcome was residual GSV 6 months after surgery measured by venous duplex ultrasound imaging. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, operation time, and postoperative neural damage. Duration of follow-up was 6 months. Quality of life was measured at 6 and 26 weeks postoperatively with the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) and Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey.
The two groups were well matched at baseline. The percentage of patients with residual GSV at 6 months (primary outcome) was 44% (102 of 230) in the cryo group and 15% (33 of 215) in the conventional group (difference 29%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 21%-37%, P < .001). Median operation time was significantly shorter in the cryo group (30 minutes) compared with the conventional group (39 minutes). Neural damage was 12% in both groups, and thus not significantly different. Scores on the subdomains of the SF-36 showed no significant change between the groups. The AVVQ after conventional stripping was 8.0, which was a better result than the 11.7 result after cryo stripping (difference 2.6 points; 95% CI, 1.0-4.2; P = .001, repeated measurements analysis of variance with adjustment for baseline scores).
Cryo stripping accounts for numerous procedural failures and hence residual GSV in patients. The AVVQ showed small but significantly better results for patients after a conventional stripping. Cryo stripping has no benefits over conventional stripping.
本多中心随机临床试验比较了大隐静脉(GSV)冷冻剥脱术与传统剥脱术。
该研究将494例临床严重程度为2至4级(CEAP)的有症状患者随机分为冷冻剥脱术组(n = 249)和传统剥脱术组(n = 245)。主要结局是术后6个月通过静脉双功超声成像测量的残留大隐静脉情况。次要结局包括生活质量、手术时间和术后神经损伤。随访时间为6个月。术后6周和26周使用阿伯丁静脉曲张问卷(AVVQ)和医学结局研究简明健康调查(SF - 36)对生活质量进行测量。
两组在基线时匹配良好。冷冻组术后6个月残留大隐静脉的患者百分比(主要结局)为44%(230例中的102例),传统组为15%(21例中的33例)(差异29%;95%置信区间[CI],21% - 37%,P <.001)。冷冻组的中位手术时间(30分钟)明显短于传统组(39分钟)。两组的神经损伤发生率均为12%,因此无显著差异。SF - 36各子领域的得分在两组之间无显著变化。传统剥脱术后AVVQ评分为8.0,优于冷冻剥脱术后的11.7(差异2.6分;95% CI,1.0 - 4.2;P =.001,对基线得分进行调整的重复测量方差分析)。
冷冻剥脱术导致大量手术失败,从而使患者残留大隐静脉。AVVQ显示传统剥脱术后患者的结果虽小但明显更好。冷冻剥脱术相对于传统剥脱术并无优势。