ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this review article was to compare the outcomes of newer non-thermal endovenous ablation techniques to thermal ablation techniques for the treatment of symptomatic venous insufficiency. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Three independent reviewers screened PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify relevant studies. A total of 1173 articles were identified from database search that met our inclusion criteria. Two articles were identified through reference search. Removal of duplicates from our original search yielded 695 articles. We then screened these articles and assessed 173 full-text articles for eligibility. Subsequent to exclusion, 11 full-text articles were selected for final inclusion. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The non-thermal techniques are similar to thermal techniques in terms of a high technical success rate, closure rate at 12 months, change in Venous Clinical Severity Score and change in quality of life after procedure. However, the length of procedure is shorter for non-thermal modalities and patient comfort is improved with lower pain scores. Return to work may also be earlier after non-thermal ablation. The rates of bruising, phlebitis and paresthesia are higher after thermal ablation. CONCLUSIONS: The non-thermal modalities are safe and effective in treating venous reflux and have shown improved patient comfort and shorter length of procedure which may make them favorable for use compared to the thermal modalities.
