ABSTRACT
OBJETIVOS: Relatar nossa experiência de 14 meses, comparando o uso do laser 980 nm com fibra axial com o laser 1.470 nm com fibra radial. MÉTODOS: Foram revisados prontuários de 215 pacientes e comparados resultados de utilização do laser diodo 980 nm com fibra axial e laser diodo 1.470 nm com fibra radial, com e sem infiltração intumescente, respectivamente , analisando porcentagem de oclusão das safenas e complicações. RESULTADOS: Foram tratadas 294 pernas de 215 pacientes. Desse total, 141 casos (65,6%) (192 membros) foram submetidos ao tratamento com laser 980, e 74 casos (34,4%) (102 membros), com o 1.470. Houve ablação completa, com fechamento de 100% em 138 (97,9%) casos para o laser 980 e em 73 (98,6%) casos para o 1.470 (p = 0,999). Houve persistência de dor pós-operatória, necessitando analgésicos num período superior a 7 dias, em 4,3% dos pacientes (seis casos) tratados com o laser 980 e em 5,4% (quatro casos) tratados com 1.470 (p = 0,740). Não houve nenhum caso de hipercromia, trombose venosa profunda ou tromboembolismo pulmonar. Parestesias no trajeto da safena ocorreram em 2,17% dos pacientes tratados com o laser 980 e em 4% dos tratados com o 1.470. CONCLUSÃO: Nossa experiência inicial mostra uma boa efetividade quanto ao fechamento das safenas com laser, poucas complicações pós-operatórias, sendo encontrados resultados semelhantes com ambos os tipos de laser.
OBJECTIVE: To report our 14-month experience comparing the use of 980 nm laser with axial fiber with 1,470 nm laser with radial fiber. METHODS: Charts from 215 patients were reviewed in order to compare the results of the use of 980 nm diode laser with axial fiber and 1,470 nm diode laser with radial fiber, with and without intumescent infiltration respectively, analyzing the percentage of saphenous vein occlusion and complications. RESULTS: A total of 294 legs of 215 patients were treated. Among them, 141 cases (65.6%) (192 limbs) underwent treatment with 980 laser, and 74 (34.4%) (102 limbs) with 1,470 laser. There was complete ablation, with 100% closing, in 138 (97.9%) cases for 980 laser and 73 (98.6%) cases for 1,470 laser (p = 0.999). Persistent postoperative pain requiring analgesics for more than 7 days was reported in 4.3% of patients (six cases) treated with laser 980 and in 5.4% (four cases) treated with 1,470 laser (p = 0.740). There were no cases of hyperchromia, deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary thromboembolism. Paresthesias in the pathway of the saphenous vein occurred in 2.17% of the patients treated with 980 laser and in 4% of those treated with 1,470 laser. CONCLUSION: Our initial experience shows good effectiveness in closing saphenous veins with laser and few postoperative complications, with similar results for both types of laser.