Comparing the Efficacy of Mechanochemical Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Treating Great Saphenous Vein...

The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence.

Online databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing MOCA and RFA in the treatment of varicose veins in lower extremities from database inception to October 2025. Primary outcome was anatomic success. Secondary outcomes were visual analog scale (VAS), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score (AVVQ), and complications. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. Subsequent analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.

A total of four RCTs, one cohort study and retrospective cross-sectional study involving 737 patients (380 MOCA patients and 357 RFA patients) were included. The meta-analysis results showed that the RFA group was significantly better than the MOCA group in short term and long term of anatomical success rate [(odds ratio [OR] = 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] (0.20, 0.71), P = 0.003), (OR = 0.17, 95% CI (0.06, 0.45), P = 0.0003)], but patients in the MOCA group had significantly lower perioperative period pain (mean difference [MD] = -4.48, 95% CI (-7.58, -1.37), P = 0.005] and required fewer days to return to normal activities (MD = -0.76, 95% CI, (-0.95, -0.57), P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in minor and major complications [(OR = 0.93, 95% CI (0.66, 1.33), P = 0.70), (OR = 1.30, 95% CI (0.32, 5.28), P = 0.72)] or quality of life scores (MD = -0.45, 95% CI (-2.53 to 1.63), P = 0.67).

MOCA of GSV incompetence is an effective and safe method. Compared with RFA, it has lower postoperative pain score and faster recovery time. However, the anatomical success rates were significantly lower with MOCA than with RFA. Therefore, long-term follow-up to evaluate the impact on clinical results is required.