Davy A, Ouvry P
Phlebologie. 1986 Jan-Mar;39(1):35-45.
The point of this paper was to compare the long-term results of sclerotherapy and resection/stripping. The authors base their argument on the study of 50 case histories of patients treated by sclerotherapy, and the same number of case histories of patients treated using the resection/stripping of the saphenofemoral junction, followed by sclerotherapy. All these patients were treated between 1965 and 1975 and, at the end of this ten year period, they were considered to need no further treatment, other than routine checks. The results were presented in two comparative series. It would seem that from the fifth year onwards the two methods give results which are appreciably similar, though obtained more rapidly by the resection/stripping method. With these results in mind, the authors mention the general position of the literature on the subject, asking whether it is possible to know whether the two series are really comparable, a fact which would seem certain. They investigate the situation of the patients after five years and deal with the more particular point of isolated ostial incompetence recidivism.
本文的目的是比较硬化疗法和切除/剥脱术的长期效果。作者的观点基于对50例接受硬化疗法治疗患者的病历研究，以及相同数量接受大隐静脉股静脉交界处切除/剥脱术并随后进行硬化疗法治疗患者的病历研究。所有这些患者均在1965年至1975年期间接受治疗，在这十年结束时，除了常规检查外，他们被认为无需进一步治疗。结果以两个比较系列呈现。从第五年起，两种方法的效果似乎明显相似，尽管切除/剥脱术方法获得效果的速度更快。考虑到这些结果，作者提及了该主题文献的总体情况，询问是否有可能知道这两个系列是否真的具有可比性，而这一点似乎是确定的。他们研究了患者五年后的情况，并处理了孤立的开口功能不全复发这一更为特殊的问题。
