↓ Skip to main content

Mechanochemical endovenous Ablation versus RADiOfrequeNcy Ablation in the treatment of primary great saphenous vein incompetence (MARADONA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Mechanochemical endovenous Ablation versus RADiOfrequeNcy Ablation in the treatment of primary great saphenous vein incompetence (MARADONA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-121
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramon RJP van Eekeren, Doeke Boersma, Suzanne Holewijn, Anco Vahl, Jean Paul PM de Vries, Clark J Zeebregts, Michel MPJ Reijnen

Abstract

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is associated with an excellent outcome in the treatment of great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence. The use of thermal energy as a treatment source requires the instillation of tumescence anesthesia. Mechanochemical endovenous ablation (MOCA) combines mechanical endothelial damage, using a rotating wire, with the infusion of a liquid sclerosant. Tumescence anesthesia is not required. Preliminary experiences with MOCA showed good results and low post-procedural pain.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Other 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 24 34%