Submited on: 20 Nov 2010 10:51:37 PM GMT
Published on: 22 Nov 2010 04:20:21 PM GMT
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Partly
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? Yes
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The paper is missing of more precise data about the population observed. It is well known that varicose syndrome has many variables, due to the great anatomical differences between subjects. The GSV may have different dilatations and length of disease and branches may be more or less involved in extension, volume, length, position and efficiency of re-entry perforator/s. All this should be studied and analysed before surgery to indicate the possible parameters involved in branches regression versus branches non regression. Furthermore, a longer follow up is needed to confirm the authors thesis as it is well known that whatever treatment is done, in the first post operative period (1 to 3 years) the results are constantly favourable, the difference appearing when a balance is recreated by the residual venous network (recanalisation, bypass, perforator reflux activation, etc ).

    Finally, it is not well specified what the indication was for branches treatment in 38% of the cases in such short interval time after operation, and the rationale of this behaviour. Probably a longer period of observation would have avoided many more treatments.

    Personally I believe that a larger varicose branches avulsion gives much better results in longer follow up.  

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    Ambulatory Phlebectomy (Ricci ,Georgiev,Goldman); Mosby 1995. II edition Taylor Francis 2005
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    40 years experience as phlebologist

  • How to cite:  S R .Endovenous Laser Therapy for Varicose Veins: Primary Treatment of Branch Varicose Veins Might Not Be Necessary[Review of the article 'Endovenous Laser Therapy for Varicose Veins: Primary Treatment of Branch Varicose Veins Might Not Be Necessary ' by Hadfield M].WebmedCentral 2011;2(2):WMCRW00492
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse