Abstract:Great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence, causing varicose veins and venous insufficiency, makes up the majority of lower‐limb superficial venous diseases. Treatment options for GSV incompetence include surgery (also known as high ligation and stripping), laser and radiofrequency ablation, and ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy. Newer treatments include cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation, and endovenous steam ablation. These techniques avoid the need for a general anaesthetic, and may result in fewer complications and improved quality of life (QoL). These treatments should be compared to inform decisions on treatment for varicosities in the GSV. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011. To assess the effects of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous steam ablation (EVSA), ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and high ligation and stripping (HL/S) for the treatment of varicosities of the great saphenous vein (GSV). The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 2 November 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) treating participants for varicosities of the GSV using EVLA, RFA, EVSA, UGFS, cyanoacrylate glue, MOCA or HL/S. Key outcomes of interest are technical success, recurrence, complications and QoL. Two review authors independently selected trials, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We identified 11 new RCTs for this update. Therefore, we included 24 RCTs with 5135 participants. Duration of follow‐up ranged from five weeks to eight years. Five comparisons included single trials. For comparisons with more than one trial, we could only pool data for 'technical success' and 'recurrence' due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and time points reported. All trials had some risk of bias concerns. Here we report the clinically most relevant comparisons. EVLA versus RFA Technical success was comparable up to five years (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.38; 5 studies, 780 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.41; 1 study, 291 participants; low‐certainty evidence). One study reported recurrence, showing no clear difference at three years (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.99; 291 participants; low‐certainty evidence), but a benefit for RFA may be seen at five years (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.52 to 5.06; 291 participants; low‐certainty evidence). EVLA versus UGFS Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 6.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 38.27; 3 studies, 588 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 6.47, 95% CI 2.60 to 16.10; 3 studies, 534 participants; low‐certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in recurrence up to three years and at five years (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.36; 2 studies, 443 participants; and OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.87; 2 studies, 418 participants; very low‐certainty evidence, respectively). EVLA versus HL/S Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.23; 6 studies, 1051 participants; low‐certainty evidence). No clear difference in technical success was seen at five years and beyond (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; 5 studies, 874 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Recurrence was comparable within three years and at 5 years (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1459 participants; and OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.76; 7 studies, 1267 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence, respectively). RFA versus MOCA There was no clear difference in technical success (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.06 to 54.15; 3 studies, 435 participants; low‐certainty evidence), or recurrence (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.81; 3 studies, 389 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Long‐term data are not available. RFA versus HL/S No clear difference in technical success was detected up to five years (OR 5.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 50.81; 2 studies, 318 participants; low‐certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.69; 1 study, 289 participants; low‐certainty evidence). No clear difference in recurrence was detected up to three years (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.51; 4 studies, 546 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence); but a possible long‐term benefit for RFA was seen (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.75; 1 study, 289 participants; low‐certainty evidence). < -Abstract Truncated-

Comparison of Foam Sclerotherapy Alone or Combined With Stripping of the Great Saphenous Vein for Treating Varicose Veins.

A comparative study on radiofrequency endovenous obliteration (RFO) and saphenous veins stripping for the treatment of varicose veins

Comparison of therapeutic effects of ligation and stripping of great saphenous vein combined with foam sclerotherapy and foam sclerotherapy alone in treatment of venous leg ulcer

A Comparison of Concomitant Tributary Laser Ablation and Foam Sclerotherapy in Patients Undergoing Truncal Endovenous Laser Ablation for Lower Limb Varicose Veins

Esophageal Variceal Ligation Monotherapy Versus Combined Ligation and Sclerotherapy for the Treatment of Esophageal Varices.

Application of Endovenous Laser Treatment Combined with Foam Sclerotherapy for the Minimally Invasive Treatment of Great Saphenous Vein Varicosity

Controlled study of endovenous laser ablation combined with foam sclerotherapy for the treatment of valvular insufficiency of great saphenous vein

[A Random, Comparative Study on Endovenous Laser Therapy and Saphenous Veins Stripping for the Treatment of Great Saphenous Vein Incompetence].

Fluoroscopy-guided foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins in the legs: a retrospective cohort analysis with long-term follow-up

Treatment effect of improved saphenous vein intraluminal closure combined with point-like exfoliation for varicose veins in lower extremities

Comparative study of the efficacy of varicose vein in lower extremity treated by great saphenous vein high ligation combined with endovenous laser treatment and great saphenous vein high ligation and stripping

Early clinical effect of saphenous vein stripping combined with foam sclerotherapy on treatment of varicose veins and prevention of infections

A 1470-Nm Laser Combined with Foam Sclerotherapy in Day Surgery: a Better Choice for Lower Limb Varicose Veins

Comparison of Immediate Therapeutic Effects of Endovenous Laser Treatment and Stripping for Lower Extremity Variose Veins

Treatment of varicose great saphenous vein with endovenous laser alone or combined with eco-guided foam sclerotherapy: A randomized controlled trial

[Endovenous Laser Ablation Versus Conventional Surgery for Great Saphenous Varicose Veins:Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials].

Protocols designing of treating varicose veins of the lower extremity by combining surgery and sclerotherapy, report of 31 cases

Interventions for great saphenous vein incompetence.

Strategies and challenges in treatment of varicose veins and venous insufficiency

Efficacy and safety of ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy combined with endoluminal radiofrequency closure in patients with varicose veins of lower extremities

Safety and Efficacy of Combining Saphenous Endovenous Laser Ablation and Varicose Veins Foam Sclerotherapy: An Analysis on 5500 Procedures in Patients With Advance Chronic Venous Disease (C3-C6)