7. Technical success.
| EVLA versus RFA | ||
| Study ‐ time point | Technical success (%) | |
| EVLA | RFA | |
| Nordon 2011 3 months | 65/68 (96) | 68/70 (97) |
|
Rasmussen 2011 1 month 5 yr |
143/144 (99) 136/144 (94) |
148/148 (100) 140/147 (95) |
| Recovery 2009 1 month | 41/41 (100) | 46/46 (100) |
| Shepherd 2010 6 months | 50/54 (93) | 50/56 (89) |
| Syndor 2017 6 months | 77/79 (97) | 72/74 (97) |
| EVLA versus EVSA | ||
| Study ‐ time point | Technical success (%) | |
| EVLA | EVSA | |
| LAST 2014 1 yr | 88/92 (96) | all 93/107 (87) higha 68/74 (92) |
| EVLA versus UGFS | ||
| Study ‐ time point | Technical success (%) | |
| EVLA | UGFS | |
|
Magna 2013 1 yr 5 yr |
69/78 (88) 49/63 (77) |
56/77 (73) 15/67 (23) |
|
Rasmussen 2011 1 month 5 yr |
143/144 (99) 136/144 (94) |
142/144 (99) 124/144 (86) |
|
Vernermo 2016 1 yr 5 yr |
71/73 (93) 51/57 (89) |
37/72 (51) 30/59 (51) |
| EVLA versus CA | ||
| Study ‐ time point | Technical success (%) | |
| EVLA | CA | |
| Calik 2019 1 yr | 203/204 (99) | 208/208 (100) |
| EVLA versus MOCA | ||
| Study ‐ time point | Technical success (%) | |
| EVLA | MOCA | |
| Vähäaho 2019 30 days | 33/33 (100) | 55/55 (100) |
| EVLA versus HL/S (surgery) | ||
| Study ‐ time point | Technical success (%) | |
| EVLA | HL/S (surgery) | |
| Darwood 2008b 3 months | EVLT1. 41/42 (97) EVLT2. 26/29 (89) |
28/32 (87) |
| HELP‐1 2011 1 yr | 136/137 (99) 100/108 (92) |
122/137 (89) 94/110 (85) |
|
Magna 2013 1 yr 5 yr |
69/78 (88) 49/63 (78) |
60/68 (88) 53/63 (85) |
|
Rasmussen 2007 1 month 5 yr |
66/69 (96) 66/69 (96) |
66/68 (97) 66/68 (97) |
|
Rasmussen 2011 1 month 5 yr |
143/144 (99) 136/144 (94) |
139/142 (98) 136/142 (96) |
|
Vernermo 2016 1 yr 5 yr |
71/73 (93) 51/57 (89) |
59/61 (97) 48/50 (96) |
| RFA versus UGFS | ||
| Study ‐ time point | Technical success (%) | |
| RFA | UGFS | |
|
Rasmussen 2011 1 month 5 yr |
148/148 (100) 140/147 (95) |
142/144 (99) 124/144 (86) |
| RFA versus CA | ||
| Study ‐ time point | Technical success (%) | |
| RFA | CA | |
| Morrison 2015 1 month | 95/110 (85) | 115/115 (100) |
| RFA versus MOCA | ||
| Study ‐ time point | Technical success (%) | |
| RFA | MOCA | |
| Lane 2017 6 months | 67/68 (98) | 77/77 (100) |
| MARADONA 2019 30 days | 103/103 (100) | 99/103 (96) |
| Vähäaho 2019 30 days | 29/29 (100) | 55/55 (100) |
| RFA versus HL/S (surgery) | ||
| Study ‐ time point | Technical success (%) | |
| RFA | HL/S (surgery) | |
|
Rasmussen 2011 1 months 5 yr |
148/148 (100) 140/147 (95) |
139/142 (98) 136/142 (96) |
| Rautio 2002 mean 50 days | 15/15 (100) | 12/13 (92) |
| UGFS versus HL/S (surgery) | ||
| Study ‐ time point | Technical success (%) | |
| UGFS | HL/S (surgery) | |
| FOAM 2010 2 yr | 139/213 (65) | 140/177 (79) |
|
Magna 2013 1 yr 5 yr |
56/77 (73) 15/67 (22) |
60/68 (88) 53/63 (84) |
|
Rasmussen 2011 1 month 5 yr |
142/144 (99) 124/144 (86) |
139/142 (98) 136/142 (96) |
|
Vernermo 2016 1 yr 5 yr |
37/72 (51) 30/59 (51) |
59/61 (97) 48/50 (96) |
aHigh dose of steam bReported as limbs and not participants
CA: cyanoacrylate glue EVLA: endovenous laser ablation (same as EVLT) EVLT: endovenous laser therapy EVSA: endovenous steam ablation HL/S: high ligation and stripping MOCA: mechanochemical ablation RFA: radiofrequency ablation UGFS: ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy yr: year(s)