A One-Year Audit of Varicose Vein Surgery at a Vascular Surgical Unit with a Long-Term Duplex and Quality of Life Follow-Up

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Very good

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Excellent

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Very good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Good

Comments:

The study is well designed and executed. The Methods and Results are adequately described. The Discussion puts forth the rationale for taking up the study, effectively describes the relevant literature and enlists the implications of the findings from the present study in that context. The audit seems to be appropriate to ascertain what results could be expected in routine clinical practice from mainly open varicose vein surgery, both regarding primary and recurrent disease. The results have been well analyzed both from the patient’s perspective (health related quality of life) as well as the caregiver’s perspective (effect on disease severity). The study further Concludes that the risk for neovascularisation seems to have been overestimated and good long-term results can be achieved following modern open surgery for the treatment of varicose vein.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Very good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This study presents a one-year audit of varicose vein surgery with the aim to document the clinical result from all types of venous interventions performed at the vascular surgical unit during a 12-month period to ascertain the quality of the treatments given before the use of endovenous alternatives. The technique of open varicose vein surgery has been improved over time and has become more minimal invasive just as all endovenous alternatives that have been introduced. The study holds significance as it has the strength of being able to provide prospective real-world data and because of the thorough follow-up the long-term results are described in detail and looked at from various angles. Being a single center audit and losing one third for the long-term follow-up comes out as some of the limitations of this study.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team