↓ Skip to main content

Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgery for great saphenous vein varices

Overview of attention for article published in Sao Paulo Medical Journal, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgery for great saphenous vein varices
Published in
Sao Paulo Medical Journal, February 2014
DOI 10.1590/1516-3180.20141321t2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Craig Nesbitt, Ron K. G. Eifell, Peter Coyne, Hassan Badri, Vish Bhattacharya, Gerard Stansby

Abstract

Minimally invasive techniques to treat great saphenous varicose veins include ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (USGFS), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser therapy (EVLT). Compared with conventional surgery (high ligation and stripping (HL/S)), proposed benefits include fewer complications, quicker return to work, improved quality of life (QoL) scores, reduced need for general anaesthesia and equivalent recurrence rates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 131 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 16%
Other 20 14%
Student > Master 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 21 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 60%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Computer Science 2 1%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 24 17%