Search

Background: The primary aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of introducing a digital health education tool (dHET) for varicose vein surgery., Methods: This randomized, feasibility study allocated 40 patients, into dHET (n = 20) or standard consent (SC) (n = 20) groups. Primary outcomes were related to feasibility. Secondary outcomes were knowledge recall, anxiety, and satisfaction., Results: Recruitment and retention rates were 100% and 97.5%, respectively. Acceptability was also rated high, confirming feasibility. There was also no evidence of a difference between groups for early knowledge recall (14 [12-17] vs. 14 [11-16]; P = 0.72) or delayed (at 2 weeks) knowledge recall (15 [13-16] vs. 15 [13-16]; P = 0.89). The dHET module took significantly longer to complete compared to SC (13 min [12-18] vs. 9 min [8-12]; P < 0.01). However, the control group asked significantly more questions about the intended procedure (P = 0.03). There was no evidence of a difference between groups for patient anxiety or satisfaction., Conclusions: This trial shows that the addition of a dHET is feasible and noninferior to SC. Digital consent provides a unique opportunity to promote patient education and autonomy for better shared decision making. It also offers better documentation of the consent process., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To reach consensus on a core set of essential information for inclusion in the informed consent process to standardize consent for VV surgery., Methods: Using a modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) method, a panel of experts in Ireland, were asked to rate statements of essential information to include in the informed consent process with patients. Statements were rated using a 5-point Likert scale. The definition of consensus was declared at 70% agreement by the panel., Results: Twenty-three panel members accepted the invitation to participate across three e-Delphi rounds. Consensus was reached on 33/42 statements, covering general and procedural information and the risks, benefits and alternatives of varicose veins (VV) surgery. Several statements remained equivocal, having not met consensus by the panel., Conclusion: Considerable consensus was reached within the panel of experts but some gaps in available research were also highlighted. This consensus may provide the framework to aid physicians to deliver a standardized discussion of the key elements of consent and shared decision making with patients.

Objective: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the role of thromboprophylaxis in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing varicose vein interventions., Methods: PUBMED, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched for comparative studies of patients undergoing varicose vein interventions and received either thromboprophylaxis or no thromboprophylaxis. Data were collected on the number of thrombotic events including deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) and endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) as well as bleeding events. The primary outcomes for the meta-analysis were the risk of all thrombotic events, risk of DVT and risk of bleeding. Pooled risk ratios were calculated using random effects modelling., Results: Eight studies (6479 participants) were included. The use of thromboprophylaxis reduces the risk of all thrombotic events (Pooled risk ratio = 0.63, 95% Confidence interval [CI], 0.04-10.43) and the risk of DVT (Pooled risk ratio = 0.59, 95% CI, 0.08-4.60) with no increased risk of bleeding (Pooled risk ratio = 0.66, 95% CI, 0.06-7.21]. Rivaroxaban has similar efficacy in the prevention of DVT compared to Fondaparinux in patients undergoing endovenous ablation of varicose veins (Pooled risk ratio = 0.68, 95% CI, 0.06-7.41). An extended course of thromboprophylaxis reduces the risk of developing DVT compared to a short course (Pooled risk ratio = 1.40, 95% CI, 0.44-4.46). However, the two studies reporting on the duration of thromboprophylaxis did not stratify patients according to their risk of developing venous thromboembolism., Conclusion: The use of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing varicose vein interventions reduces the risk of venous thromboembolism with no significant increase in the risk of bleeding. However, the included studies were underpowered with high to moderate risk of bias. Therefore, more randomised controlled trials with a large sample size are needed in order to provide high quality evidence for clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2022 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Varicose veins are common and frequently cause patient distress. In recent years, Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to traditional open venous ligation surgery., Aims: The aim of this study was to directly compare RFA and open saphenofemoral ligation., Methods: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study. Consecutive patients undergoing surgical management over a 2-year period commencing from January 2011 were studied. Radiological success, peri-operative serological testing and hospital length of stay were documented. Procedural cost was calculated. A focused cohort analysis was undertaken to compare the initial 50 RFA procedures performed with the last 50., Results: During the study period, 296 patients underwent surgical intervention. A total of 204 patients underwent RFA. Sixty-six percent of all patients were female. RFA was associated with a reduction in overnight hospital stay (18 vs. 78 %, P = <0.001) when compared with open ligation with a success rate of 98 %. No significant inter-group difference was noted for 30-day readmission (p = 0.203). Focused cohort analysis identified an increase in hospital day case activity (74 vs. 90 %, p = 0.002), which contributed to a reduction in procedural cost (€1,024 vs. €971, p = 0.003) over the study period., Conclusions: Radiofrequency ablation is a viable alternative to open repair offering excellent efficacy. It is however associated with a higher procedural cost than the open surgical option.