• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

射频消融与传统手术治疗静脉曲张的成本比较:一项随机试验。

Radiofrequency ablation vs conventional surgery for varicose veins - a comparison of treatment costs in a randomised trial.

机构信息

General Surgery, King's Mill Hospital, Mansfield, UK.

出版信息

Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010 Jan;39(1):104-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2009.09.012. Epub 2009 Oct 29.

DOI:10.1016/j.ejvs.2009.09.012
PMID:19879166
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costs involved (from procedure to recovery) following radiofrequency ablation and conventional surgery for lower limb varicose veins in a selected population.

DESIGN

Prospective randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic great saphenous varicose veins suitable for radiofrequency ablation were randomised to either RF ablation or surgery (sapheno-femoral ligation and stripping). The hospital, general practice and patient costs incurred until full recovery and the indirect cost to society, due to sickness leave after surgery, were calculated to indicate mean cost per patient under each category.

RESULTS

Ninety three patients were randomised. Eighty eight patients (47 - RF ablation, 41 - surgery) underwent the allocated intervention. Ablation took longer to perform than surgery (mean 76.8 vs 47.0 min, p<.001). Ablation was more expensive (mean hospital cost per patient 1275.90 pounds vs 559.13 pounds) but enabled patients to return to work 1 week earlier than after surgery (mean 12.2 vs 19.8 days, p=0.006). Based on the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (Office of National Statistics, UK) for full time employees, the cost per working hour gained after ablation was 6.94 pounds (95% CI 6.26, 7.62).

CONCLUSION

The increased cost of radiofrequency ablation is partly offset by a quicker return to work in the employed group (ISRCTN29015169http://www.controlled-trials.com).

摘要

目的

在特定人群中比较射频消融与传统手术治疗下肢静脉曲张的相关费用(从手术到康复)。

设计

前瞻性随机对照试验。

方法

对适合射频消融的大隐静脉曲张患者进行随机分组,分别接受射频消融或手术治疗(大隐静脉高位结扎和剥脱术)。分别计算患者在完全康复之前的医院、全科医生和患者费用,以及因术后病假而给社会带来的间接成本,以表明每类患者的平均费用。

结果

93 例患者被随机分组。88 例患者(47 例 - 射频消融,41 例 - 手术)接受了分配的干预措施。消融手术的操作时间长于手术(平均 76.8 分钟 vs 47.0 分钟,p<.001)。消融术的费用更高(每位患者的平均医院费用为 1275.90 英镑 vs 559.13 英镑),但比手术后能更早地恢复工作(平均 12.2 天 vs 19.8 天,p=0.006)。根据英国国家统计局(Office of National Statistics,英国)的年度工时和收入调查(Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings),对全职员工而言,消融术后每小时工作的收益成本为 6.94 英镑(95%CI 6.26,7.62)。

结论

射频消融术的成本增加部分被受雇患者更快恢复工作所抵消(ISRCTN29015169http://www.controlled-trials.com)。

相似文献

1
Radiofrequency ablation vs conventional surgery for varicose veins - a comparison of treatment costs in a randomised trial.射频消融与传统手术治疗静脉曲张的成本比较:一项随机试验。
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010 Jan;39(1):104-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2009.09.012. Epub 2009 Oct 29.
2
Randomized clinical trial of radiofrequency ablation or conventional high ligation and stripping for great saphenous varicose veins.射频消融与传统高位结扎剥脱术治疗大隐静脉曲张的随机临床试验。
Br J Surg. 2010 Mar;97(3):328-36. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6867.
3
Cost-effectiveness analysis of surgery versus conservative treatment for uncomplicated varicose veins in a randomized clinical trial.一项随机临床试验中单纯性静脉曲张手术与保守治疗的成本效益分析。
Br J Surg. 2006 Feb;93(2):182-6. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5263.
4
Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy of the great saphenous vein with sapheno-femoral ligation compared to standard stripping: a prospective clinical study.与标准剥脱术相比,超声引导下大隐静脉泡沫硬化疗法联合大隐静脉-股静脉结扎术:一项前瞻性临床研究。
Int Angiol. 2011 Aug;30(4):321-6.
5
Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins.随机对照临床试验比较静脉腔内激光消融术、射频消融术、泡沫硬化剂治疗和手术剥脱治疗大隐静脉曲张。
Br J Surg. 2011 Aug;98(8):1079-87. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7555.
6
Randomised comparison of costs and cost-effectiveness of cryostripping and endovenous laser ablation for varicose veins: 2-year results.冷冻剥脱术与静脉腔内激光消融术治疗静脉曲张的成本及成本效益随机对照比较:2年结果
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009 Mar;37(3):357-63. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2008.11.013. Epub 2008 Dec 25.
7
Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy combined with sapheno-femoral ligation compared to surgical treatment of varicose veins: early results of a randomised controlled trial.超声引导下泡沫硬化疗法联合大隐静脉-股静脉结扎术与静脉曲张手术治疗的比较:一项随机对照试验的早期结果
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006 Jan;31(1):93-100. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2005.08.024. Epub 2005 Oct 17.
8
Randomised controlled trial comparing sapheno-femoral ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein with endovenous laser ablation (980 nm) using local tumescent anaesthesia: one year results.随机对照试验比较局部肿胀麻醉下大隐静脉高位结扎剥脱术与 980nm 腔内激光消融术治疗大隐静脉曲张:一年结果。
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010 Nov;40(5):649-56. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.08.007.
9
Traditional versus endoscopic saphenous vein stripping: a prospective randomized pilot trial.传统大隐静脉剥脱术与内镜下大隐静脉剥脱术:一项前瞻性随机试点试验。
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008 Nov;36(5):611-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2008.06.025. Epub 2008 Aug 20.
10
[Endoluminal radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein versus stripping. A preliminary study].[大隐静脉腔内射频消融与剥脱术的对比:一项初步研究]
Minerva Chir. 2005 Dec;60(6):481-6.

引用本文的文献

1
Outcome Measures of In-Office Endovenous Radiofrequency Treatment of Varicose Vein Feasibility.门诊腔内射频治疗静脉曲张可行性的结局指标
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Jan 16;13(2):327. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13020327.
2
Interventions for great saphenous vein incompetence.大隐静脉功能不全的治疗方法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Aug 11;8(8):CD005624. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005624.pub4.
3
Randomised controlled study to compare radiofrequency ablation with minimally invasive ultrasound-guided non-flush ligation and stripping of great saphenous vein in the treatment of varicose veins.
比较射频消融与微创超声引导下大隐静脉非 flush 结扎剥脱术治疗静脉曲张的随机对照研究。 (注:这里“non-flush ligation”中的“flush”不太明确其准确含义,可能是专业术语中特定的一种结扎方式表述,若有更准确的专业背景知识,译文会更精准)
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2020 Sep;102(7):525-531. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2020.0116. Epub 2020 Jun 15.
4
[Pros and cons of classic crossectomy with stripping compared to endoluminal treatment : Competition or team play?].[与腔内治疗相比,经典剥脱性横断切除术的利弊:竞争还是团队协作?]
Hautarzt. 2020 Jan;71(1):6-11. doi: 10.1007/s00105-019-04515-z.
5
Is radiofrequency ablation of varicose veins a valuable option? A systematic review of the literature with a cost analysis.射频消融治疗静脉曲张是一种有价值的选择吗?一项结合成本分析的文献系统综述。
Can J Surg. 2018 Apr;61(2):128-138. doi: 10.1503/cjs.010114.
6
[Endovenous ablation versus open surgery for varicose veins : An attempt at an evaluation].[静脉曲张的腔内消融术与开放手术:一项评估尝试]
Hautarzt. 2017 Aug;68(8):603-613. doi: 10.1007/s00105-017-3996-2.
7
Minimally invasive treatments for perforator vein insufficiency.穿支静脉功能不全的微创治疗
Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2016 Dec;6(6):593-598. doi: 10.21037/cdt.2016.11.12.
8
Randomized trial of radiofrequency ablation versus conventional surgery for superficial venous insufficiency: if you don't tell, they won't know.射频消融术与传统手术治疗浅静脉功能不全的随机试验:你不说,他们就不知道。
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2016 Nov 1;71(11):650-656. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2016(11)06.
9
External Application of Traditional Chinese Medicine for Venous Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.中药外用治疗静脉性溃疡:一项系统评价与Meta分析
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:831474. doi: 10.1155/2015/831474. Epub 2015 Sep 7.
10
Radiofrequency ablation: an assessment of clinical and cost efficacy.射频消融术:临床及成本效益评估
Ir J Med Sci. 2016 Feb;185(1):107-10. doi: 10.1007/s11845-014-1229-6. Epub 2014 Nov 21.