9. Five‐year recurrence.
| EVLA versus RFA | ||
| Study ‐ final time point | Recurrence noted at final time point (%) | |
| EVLA | RFA | |
| Rasmussen 2011a | 42/144 (29) | 19/147 (13) |
| EVLA versus EVSA ‐ no data | ||
| EVLA versus UGFS | ||
| Study ‐ final time point | Recurrence noted at final time point (%) | |
| EVLA | UGFS | |
| Magna 2013 | 14/63 (22) | 21/67 (31) |
| Rasmussen 2011a | 42/144 (29) | 28/144(19) |
| EVLA versus CA ‐ no data | ||
| EVLA versus MOCA ‐ no data | ||
| EVLA versus HL/S (surgery) | ||
| Study ‐ final time point | Recurrence noted at final time point (%) | |
| EVLA | HL/S (surgery) | |
| Flessenkämper 2013 | 11/45 (24) | 14/53 (26) |
| HELP‐1 2011 | 29/108 (27) | 47/110 (43) |
| Magna 2013 | 14/63 (22) | 8/63 (13) |
| Pronk 2010 | 19/61 (31) | 4/60 (7) |
| Rasmussen 2007 | 25/69 (36) | 24/68 (35) |
| Rasmussen 2011a | 42/144 (29) | 38/142 (27) |
| RELACS 2012 | 69/152 (45) | 70/129 (54) |
| RFA versus UGFS | ||
| Study ‐ final time point | Recurrence noted at final time point (%) | |
| RFA | UGFS | |
| Rasmussen 2011a | 19/147 (13) | 28/144 (19) |
| RFA versus CA ‐ no data | ||
| RFA versus MOCA ‐ no data | ||
| RFA versus HL/S (surgery) | ||
| Study ‐ final time point | Recurrence noted at final time point (%) | |
| RFA | HL/S (surgery) | |
| Rasmussen 2011a | 19/147 (13) | 38/142 (27) |
| UGFS versus HL/S (surgery) | ||
| Study ‐ final time point | Recurrence noted at final time point (%) | |
| UGFS | HL/S (surgery) | |
| FOAM 2010 8 yr | 86/120 (72) | 71/103 (69) |
| Magna 2013 | 21/67 (31) | 8/63 (13) |
| Rasmussen 2011a | 28/144 (19) | 38/142 (27) |
aReported as limbs and not participants
CA: cyanoacrylate glue EVLA: endovenous laser ablation EVSA: endovenous steam ablation HL/S: high ligation and stripping MOCA: mechanochemical ablation RFA: radiofrequency ablation UGFS: ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy