In the hands of a competent physician, is clarivein more technically demanding than that of a radio frequency approach when treating varicose veins?

Same: A competent phlebologist should be able to preform clarivein procedure as well as radio frequency ablation procedure. Clarivein does not require tumescent (local) anesthesia; however, it is a newer method, and the long term results are still not in. Radiofrequency ablation has good results, and long term followup shows 90%+ success.

Clarivein: Not really. The technique is fairly straight forward and and not considered difficult, but like any procedure there is a learning curve so it is important to know how many procedures that the physician has performed. Although the preliminary results are good & it has acheived FDA approval, we do not have long-term outcome data like we do for thermal ablation i.e. EVLT or radiofrequency ablation

ClariVein: ClariVein is technically easier. However, in thin patients, especially below the knees, it seems to leave hemosiderin staining along the course of the ablated saphenous vein and therefore, I use other technologies below the knee. The benefit of seeing someone who uses different technologies is that he/she could choose the most appropriate technology for the patient.

Closure procedures: There are many alternatives to closing a refluxing vein including Clarivein, Laser Ablation, RadioFrequency Ablation, Varithena and VenaSeal. Each method has its pros and cons and all methods work and the long term results are similar for each method. A physician trained in any or all of these methods should be able to perform them safely. Some are technically more difficult to do than others.

Clariven: These are 2 different approaches to management, the Clariven is both a mechanical, and chemical destruction of the vein, and does not require the use of tumescent anesthesia. The radiofrequency approach is a thermal ablation of the vein, and does require tumescent anesthesia. They are both reasonable options.