Single-Center Outcomes of Cyanoacrylate Adhesive Closure versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Treating Chronic Venous Insufficiency: A Randomized Controlled Study
Year: 2025
Type: article
Study designs: Randomized Controlled Trial, Clinical Trial
Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the safety and effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with those of cyanoacrylate adhesive closure (CAC) in managing great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency over 1-year follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial, patients with chronic venous insufficiency were allocated in a 1:1 to RFA or CAC. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete GSV closure. Secondary endpoints included changes in Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) scores, intraoperative pain scores, and incidence of procedure-related adverse events. RESULTS: Among 33 patients assessed for eligibility, 28 were randomized and completed follow-up (CAC: n = 15; RFA: n = 13). At 180 days, complete closure rates were 100% (15 of 15) with CAC and 92.3% (12 of 13) with RFA. By 360 days, both groups achieved 100% closure. The CAC group showed significantly lower AVVQ scores at Postoperative Day 3 (95% CI, -3.64 to -0.32; P = .021), reduced operative time (18.3 minutes [SD ± 3.1] vs 24.7 minutes [SD ± 4.2]; P = .01), and less intraoperative pain. Adverse event rates were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAC and RFA were effective and safe treatments for GSV insufficiency over 1 year. However, CAC provided superior short-term outcomes, including lower AVVQ scores, shorter procedure times, and reduced intraoperative pain, offering better patient comfort and efficiency immediately after treatment. Given the limited sample size, further studies are warranted to validate these findings.
Authors: Cheng Zhang, Bisi Wang, Chi Cui
Language: English
Subfield: Surgery
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $3,600
OpenAlex ID: W4416641343