LAUSR

Dear Editor, We read with great interest the article entitled “Radiofrequency ablation for markedly incompetent perforators versus compression therapy in the management of postphelebtic venous ulcers: A randomized controlled trial” by Abdelgawad et al. In this prospective study, some points need to be clarified by the authors. First of all, it should be better if the use of tumescent anesthesia in the radiofrequency ablation group could be stated in the methods (especially in terms of thermal damage). The authors mentioned in the methods section that “all cases had their saphenous veins ablated or stripped before they are randomized”, but they did not compare the groups in terms of intervention to the saphenous veins. Also, residual reflux in the saphenous veins was not mentioned in the text. The authors presented univariate and multivariate logistic regression tests for “predictors of ulcer healing” in Table 3, but these tests were not mentioned in the “Statistical Analysis” section. On the other hand, presenting the results of the goodness-of-fit test for their logistic regression model (e.g., Hosmer–Lemeshow Test) could be relevant. Lastly, there are a few typos in the article; phlebitic instead of “phelebtic” in the title and venous instead of “venus” in the abstract could be relevant. We congratulate the authors for their well-designed and presented study which compares two methods in the management of the post-phlebitic venous ulcers. We would like to hear authors’ opinions on these matters. Declaration of conflicting interests