Ten-year outcomes of a randomized clinical trial of endothermal ablation versus conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins.

BACKGROUND: Surgical ligation and stripping (surgery) and endothermal ablation are both effective treatments for varicose veins, improving quality of life (QoL) up to 5 years. Few data are available on long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes 10 years after interventions in an RCT. Previously this RCT demonstrated that endothermal ablation is associated with superior postprocedural QoL, more rapid recovery, and lower rates of early clinical recurrence. This analysis reports outcomes at 10 years. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic varicose veins owing to unilateral great saphenous vein reflux were randomized to either surgery or endovenous laser ablation (EVLA). Outcomes at 10 years included clinical recurrence and QoL. RESULTS: Data were obtained for 206 of 280 patients (73.6%) at 10 years. Both groups retained significant QoL improvement compared with pretreatment levels (Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), Short Form 36 (SF-36®), and EQ-5D™; P < 0.001). Clinical disease progression from baseline was observed in only 10.7% of patients. The clinical recurrence rate was lower in the EVLA group (37 versus 59%; P = 0.005). The number needed to treat with EVLA to avoid one clinical recurrence within 10 years was five. This was associated with significantly higher (better) generic QoL scores with EVLA in several SF-36® domains, including bodily pain (median 84 (i.q.r. 51-100) versus 62 (41-84); P = 0.009) and general health (77 (62-87) versus 67 (52-82); P = 0.017). AVVQ scores in the EVLA group were also lower (better) (3.1 (0-7.7) versus 6.3 (0.7-13.3); P = 0.029). CONCLUSION: Both surgery and endothermal ablation are effective treatments for varicose veins at 10 years, with durable improvement in QoL and a very low rate of disease progression. However, endothermal ablation was associated with superior clinical and QoL outcomes. Registration number: NCT00759434 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Molecular mechanisms of action of negative pressure wound therapy: a systematic review.

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has significantly advanced wound care and continues to find new applications. Its effects at a molecular level however, remain a subject of debate. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the current evidence regarding the molecular mechanisms of action of NPWT. Medline, Embase, EBSCO databases and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to January 2023. Clinical studies, animal models or in-vitro studies that quantitatively or semi-quantitatively evaluated the influence of NPWT on growth factors, cytokine or gene-expression in the circulation or wound-bed were included. Risk of Bias assessment was performed using the RoBANS tool for non-randomized studies, the COCHRANE's Risk of Bias 2(ROB-2) tool for randomized clinical studies, OHAT tool for in-vitro studies or the SYRCLE tool for animal model studies. A descriptive summary was collated and the aggregated data is presented as a narrative synthesis. This review included 19 clinical studies, 11 animal studies and 3 in-vitro studies. The effects of NPWT on 43 biomarkers and 17 gene expressions were studied across included studies. NPWT stimulates modulation of numerous local and circulating cytokines and growth factor expressions to promote an anti-inflammatory profile. This is most likely achieved by downregulation of TNFα, upregulation of VEGF, TGF-ß and fibronectin.

An international consensus for mitigation of the detrimental effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on laparoscopic training.

AIM: Achieve an international consensus on how to recover lost training opportunities. The results of this study will help inform future EAES guidelines about the recovery of surgical training before and after the pandemic. BACKGROUND: A global survey conducted by our team demonstrated significant disruption in surgical training during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was wide-spread and affected all healthcare systems (whether insurance based or funded by public funds) in all participating countries. Thematic analysis revealed the factors perceived by trainees as barriers to training and gave birth to four-point framework of recovery. These are recommendations that can be easily achieved in any country, with minimal resources. Their implementation, however, relies heavily on the active participation and leadership by trainers. Based on the results of the global trainee survey, the authors would like to conduct a Delphi-style survey, addressed to trainers on this occasion, to establish a pragmatic step-by-step approach to improve training during and after the pandemic. METHODS: This will be a mixed qualitative and quantitative study. Semi-structured interviews will be performed with laparoscopic trainers. These will be transcribed and thematic analysis will be applied. A questionnaire will then be proposed; this will be based on both the results of the semi structured interviews and of the global trainee survey. The questionnaire will then be validated by the steering committee of this group (achieve consensus of >80%). After validation, the questionnaire will be disseminated to trainers across the globe. Participants will be asked to consent to participate in further cycles of the Delphi process until more than 80% agreement is achieved. RESULTS: This study will result in a pragmatic framework for continuation of surgical training during and after the pandemic (with special focus on minimally invasive surgery training).