<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2 20190208//EN" "http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.2/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" article-type="other" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en">
    <front>
        <journal-meta>
            <journal-id journal-id-type="pmc">F1000Research</journal-id>
            <journal-title-group>
                <journal-title>F1000Research</journal-title>
            </journal-title-group>
            <issn pub-type="epub">2046-1402</issn>
            <publisher>
                <publisher-name>F1000 Research Limited</publisher-name>
                <publisher-loc>London, UK</publisher-loc>
            </publisher>
        </journal-meta>
        <article-meta>
            <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.12688/f1000research.180447.1</article-id>
            <article-categories>
                <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
                    <subject>Study Protocol</subject>
                </subj-group>
                <subj-group>
                    <subject>Articles</subject>
                </subj-group>
            </article-categories>
            <title-group>
                <article-title>Protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of n-butyl cyanoacrylate glue versus endovenous laser ablation for recurrent varicose veins due to residual/ recurrent incompetent perforators.</article-title>
                <fn-group content-type="pub-status">
                    <fn>
                        <p>[version 1; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]</p>
                    </fn>
                </fn-group>
            </title-group>
            <contrib-group>
                <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
                    <name>
                        <surname>Nirwan</surname>
                        <given-names>Lalit Kumar</given-names>
                    </name>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Conceptualization</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Data Curation</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Formal Analysis</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Investigation</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Methodology</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Project Administration</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Validation</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Visualization</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Writing &#x2013; Original Draft Preparation</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Writing &#x2013; Review &amp; Editing</role>
                    <uri content-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3089-2903</uri>
                    <xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c1">a</xref>
                    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="a1">1</xref>
                    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="a2">2</xref>
                </contrib>
                <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
                    <name>
                        <surname>Banode</surname>
                        <given-names>Pankaj</given-names>
                    </name>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Conceptualization</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Data Curation</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Formal Analysis</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Methodology</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Supervision</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Validation</role>
                    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="a1">1</xref>
                    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="a2">2</xref>
                </contrib>
                <aff id="a1">
                    <label>1</label>PhD Scholar, Department of Interventional Radiology, JNMC and Acharya Vinoba Bhave Rural Hospital, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research (Deemed to be University), Wardha, Maharashtra, 442001, India</aff>
                <aff id="a2">
                    <label>2</label>Professor and Head of Department, Department of Interventional Radiology, JNMC and Acharya Vinoba Bhave Rural Hospital, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research (Deemed to be University),, Wardha, Maharashtra, 442001, India</aff>
            </contrib-group>
            <author-notes>
                <corresp id="c1">
                    <label>a</label>
                    <email xlink:href="mailto:lalitnirwan@gmail.com">lalitnirwan@gmail.com</email>
                </corresp>
                <fn fn-type="conflict">
                    <p>No competing interests were disclosed.</p>
                </fn>
            </author-notes>
            <pub-date pub-type="epub">
                <day>14</day>
                <month>5</month>
                <year>2026</year>
            </pub-date>
            <pub-date pub-type="collection">
                <year>2026</year>
            </pub-date>
            <volume>15</volume>
            <elocation-id>738</elocation-id>
            <history>
                <date date-type="accepted">
                    <day>30</day>
                    <month>4</month>
                    <year>2026</year>
                </date>
            </history>
            <permissions>
                <copyright-statement>Copyright: &#x00a9; 2026 Nirwan LK and Banode P</copyright-statement>
                <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
                <license xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
                    <license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</license-p>
                </license>
            </permissions>
            <self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://f1000research.com/articles/15-738/pdf"/>
            <abstract>
                <sec>
                    <title>Background</title>
                    <p>Varicose veins of the lower extremities are a common condition associated with significant morbidity and reduced quality of life. This condition results in chronic discomfort and functional impairment, significantly reducing patients&#x2019; quality of life due to symptoms such as pain, fatigue, and venous ulcers. Recurrence of varicose veins after treatment often leads to the reappearance of clinical symptoms, necessitating further intervention. Effective management is crucial for addressing incompetent perforator veins, which are a key factor in such recurrences.</p>
                </sec>
                <sec>
                    <title>Objective</title>
                    <p>To compare the efficacy (anatomical closure rates and clinical improvement) and safety of n-butyl cyanoacrylate glue (NBCA) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) for the treatment of recurrent varicose veins due to recurrent/residual incompetent perforators.</p>
                </sec>
                <sec>
                    <title>Materials and methods</title>
                    <p>This is a single-centre, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The trial will be conducted under the Department of Interventional Radiology at Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Sawangi, Maharashtra, India. A total of 200 patients with recurrent varicose veins (CEAP C3&#x2013;C6) will be enrolled and randomly assigned to EVLA (Group A) or NBCA (Group B). Interventions will be performed under ultrasound guidance. Outcome assessment will be single-blinded. Primary outcomes include anatomical closure rates and improvement in Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) at 6&#x00a0;months and 1&#x00a0;year. Secondary outcomes include complications and procedure duration.</p>
                </sec>
                <sec>
                    <title>Result</title>
                    <p>The study is designed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety profile of NBCA and EVLA in recurrent varicose veins due to recurrent/residual incompetent perforators.</p>
                </sec>
                <sec>
                    <title>Conclusion</title>
                    <p>This trial will provide evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of cyanoacrylate glue versus EVLA, potentially guiding optimal management of recurrent varicose veins.</p>
                    <p>Trial registered with Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2025/08/093813; registered on 05 July 2025).</p>
                </sec>
            </abstract>
            <kwd-group kwd-group-type="author">
                <kwd>recurrent varicose veins</kwd>
                <kwd>incompetent perforator veins</kwd>
                <kwd>n-butyl cyanoacrylate glue (NBCA)</kwd>
                <kwd>endovenous laser ablation (EVLA)</kwd>
                <kwd>duplex ultrasound</kwd>
                <kwd>venous clinical severity score (VCSS)</kwd>
                <kwd>randomized controlled trial</kwd>
                <kwd>chronic venous insufficiency</kwd>
            </kwd-group>
            <funding-group>
                <funding-statement>The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.</funding-statement>
            </funding-group>
        </article-meta>
    </front>
    <body>
        <sec id="sec6">
            <title>Introduction (Background and rationale)</title>
            <p>Varicose veins of the lower extremities represent a common and symptomatic condition affecting a significant proportion of the adult population, with prevalence reported to range from 2% to over 60% in population-based studies.
                <sup>
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>,
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
                </sup> These veins result in chronic discomfort and functional impairment, significantly reducing patients&#x2019; quality of life due to symptoms such as pain, fatigue, and venous ulcers. Minimally invasive treatments including endovenous thermal ablation and non-thermal ablation using n-butyl cyanoacrylate glue are increasingly popular.
                <sup>
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
                </sup> Recurrence of varicose veins after treatment often leads to the reappearance of clinical symptoms, necessitating further intervention.
                <sup>
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
                </sup>
            </p>
            <p>Recurrent varicose veins have been reported to occur in 7% to 65% of patients following treatment.
                <sup>
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>,
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
                </sup> However, the aetiology and pathogenesis of recurrent varicose veins remain incompletely understood. Recurrent varicose veins were thought to be largely due to inadequate surgery, residual perforators, tributaries that enlarged with time, or the development of varicosities due to recurrent collateral veins, altered venous dynamics and neovascularization.
                <sup>
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>,
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>,
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
                </sup>
            </p>
            <p>Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) has been used for thermal ablation of perforators. However, it requires tumescent anaesthesia and there is a risk of thermal injury to the surrounding tissue. N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NBCA) is a liquid embolic agent that polymerizes upon contact with blood, occluding the vessel.
                <sup>
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
                </sup> This method does not require tumescent anaesthesia and carries no risk of heat-related nerve injury.</p>
            <p>
While both the modalities have been found to be effective in the treatment of primary varicose veins, evidence is scarce for their efficacy and safety profile for the treatment of recurrent varicose veins due to recurrent/residual incompetent perforator veins. Both EVLA and NBCA have demonstrated favourable efficacy profiles; however, EVLA is associated with risks of thermal injury and nerve damage, while NBCA carries risks of non-target embolization and inflammatory reactions.</p>
            <p>Therefore, the present study is designed as a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether cyanoacrylate glue is superior to EVLA in achieving anatomical closure and clinical improvement in recurrent varicose veins due to residual/recurrent incompetent perforators.</p>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec7">
            <title>Protocol objectives</title>
            <p>

                <bold>Primary objective:</bold>

                <list list-type="bullet">
                    <list-item>
                        <label>&#x2022;</label>
                        <p>To compare the anatomical closure rates of incompetent perforators at 6&#x00a0;months and 1&#x00a0;year post-procedure, as confirmed using duplex ultrasound.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <label>&#x2022;</label>
                        <p>To assess improvement in clinical symptoms using the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) at 6&#x00a0;months and 1&#x00a0;year.</p>
                    </list-item>
                </list>
            </p>
            <p>

                <bold>Secondary objective:</bold>

                <list list-type="bullet">
                    <list-item>
                        <label>&#x2022;</label>
                        <p>To evaluate the safety profile by assessing procedure-related complications (immediate, at 6&#x00a0;months, and at 1&#x00a0;year) following each treatment modality.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <label>&#x2022;</label>
                        <p>To assess and compare the duration of procedure for both the treatment modalities.</p>
                    </list-item>
                </list>
            </p>
            <sec id="sec8">
                <title>Study design</title>
                <p>This is an interventional, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial with a superiority framework. The random allocation sequence will be generated by an independent statistician using a computer-generated randomization method (simple randomization) with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The study is single-blind, with blinding of the outcome assessor and data analyst. The present study will be conducted on the patients admitted under the Department of Interventional Radiology Department of Interventional Radiology, JNMC and Acharya Vinoba Bhave Rural Hospital at Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Sawangi, Maharashtra, India, from September 2025 to August 2026. Patients and the public were not directly involved in the design of this study; however, the study outcomes were selected based on clinically relevant endpoints that impact patient quality of life.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec9">
                <title>Eligibility criteria</title>
                <p>All patients (aged more than 18&#x00a0;years old) admitted under the Department of Interventional Radiology and diagnosed with recurrent varicose veins will be included in the study. All the patients should have a clear history of prior treatment. The varicose veins shall be diagnosed and confirmed by ultrasound and patient shall be classified according to the Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Pathophysiology (CEAP) classification. Patients belonging to CEAP classes C3 to C6 shall be included in the trial. All the cases where they refuse to consent to participate in the study and any patient with deep vein thrombosis, with medical conditions like terminal cancer, immunocompromised status or known coagulopathies, patients on anticoagulants or patients allergic to any of the study drugs will be excluded. Pregnant and lactating women shall also be excluded.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec10">
                <title>Ethical considerations &amp; consent</title>
                <p>Prior to initiation of the study, approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research (Approval Reference No.: DMIHER (DU)/IEC/2025/231; dated 05 July 2025). The study will be conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The trial has been prospectively registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2025/08/093813) (
                    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://ctri.nic.in">http://ctri.nic.in</ext-link>) on 28 August 2025.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec11">
                <title>Protocol amendments and communication</title>
                <p>Any important protocol modifications (such as changes to eligibility criteria, interventions, outcomes, or analysis methods) will be submitted to the Institutional Ethics Committee for approval prior to implementation. Approved amendments will be communicated to all relevant stakeholders, including investigators, study personnel, and the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI), where the trial record will be updated accordingly.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec12">
                <title>Informed consent</title>
                <p>Informed consent will be obtained from all participants prior to enrolment in the study. The consent process will be conducted by the Principal Investigator or a trained Co-investigator. Participants will be provided with a detailed patient information sheet explaining the purpose of the study, procedures involved, potential risks and benefits, and their rights as research participants. Adequate time will be given to ask questions and consider participation. Written informed consent will be obtained voluntarily before any study-related procedures are performed. For participants unable to provide consent, consent will be obtained from a legally authorized representative in accordance with ethical guidelines. The consent form will be provided in a language understandable to the participant. No biological specimens will be collected as part of this study, and no ancillary or future use of participant data is planned beyond the objectives of this trial. Therefore, no additional consent provisions are required.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec13">
                <title>Confidentiality</title>
                <p>Personal information of participants will be collected as part of routine clinical evaluation and study documentation and will be recorded in the Case Record Form. Each participant will be assigned a unique study identification number, and all data used for analysis will be de-identified to ensure confidentiality. Access to identifiable data will be restricted to the Principal Investigator and authorized study personnel only. Electronic data will be stored in password-protected systems, and physical records will be maintained in locked cabinets within the research office. Participant data will not be shared outside the study team except in anonymized form for scientific publication or as required by regulatory authorities. Confidentiality of participant information will be maintained throughout the study and after its completion in accordance with institutional policies and applicable regulations. All procedures will comply with applicable data protection and privacy regulations.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec14">
                <title>Sample size and sampling procedure</title>
                <p>The sample size was calculated for comparison of two independent proportions (anatomical closure rates) between cyanoacrylate glue and endovenous laser ablation. Based on existing literature, the expected closure rate for EVLA in recurrent varicose veins is approximately 70&#x2013;80%, while cyanoacrylate glue demonstrates closure rates of 85&#x2013;95%. For the purpose of sample size estimation, a conservative assumption of 75% closure for EVLA and 90% for cyanoacrylate glue was considered, corresponding to an absolute difference of 15%. The sample size was calculated using a two-sided test for difference in proportions, with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 and statistical power of 80%. Using the standard formula for comparison of two independent proportions, the required sample size was estimated to be 97 patients per group. To account for minimal attrition and ensure adequate statistical power, the sample size was rounded to 100 patients per group, resulting in a total sample size of 200 patients.</p>
                <p>The final sample size is 100 participants per group. All consecutive patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be included in the study till the desired sample size is met. All patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria shall be approached by the Research Team and given detailed information about the trial, its importance and impact. A written Information sheet shall be given and all the questions of the patients shall be answered by the Research Team.</p>
                <p>Participants will be recruited from patients presenting with recurrent varicose veins to the Department of Interventional Radiology at Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, a tertiary care referral center with a high patient load of chronic venous disease. Potential participants will be identified through outpatient clinics and inpatient referrals. Consecutive eligible patients meeting the inclusion criteria will be screened and approached for participation. To ensure adequate enrolment, collaboration with departments of vascular surgery and general medicine will be established to facilitate referral of eligible cases. Regular screening logs will be maintained to monitor recruitment rates.</p>
                <p>Patients will be provided detailed information about the study, including its clinical relevance and potential benefits, to enhance participation. Given the institutional patient volume and referral pattern, recruitment of the required sample size within the defined study period is considered feasible.</p>
            </sec>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec15">
            <title>Methodology</title>
            <p>After inclusion in the study, detailed demographic information will be recorded for each patient. All assessments will be performed using duplex venous Doppler ultrasound, combining B-mode imaging and Doppler flow analysis. Successful closure will be defined as absence of flow within the treated perforator, presence of echogenic intraluminal cast, and no evidence of recanalization.</p>
            <sec id="sec16">
                <title>Group allocation and blinding</title>
                <p>After inclusion in the study, the patients will be randomly divided into Group A (Laser Group) and Group B (Glue Group). The random allocation sequence will be generated by an independent statistician using a computer-generated randomization method (simple randomization) with a 1:1 allocation ratio. No stratification factors will be applied. No blocking or other restriction methods will be used in sequence generation. As simple randomization is employed, no additional restricted randomization details are maintained. Allocation concealment will be ensured using sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes (SNOSE), prepared by an independent statistician which will be opened only after participant enrolment. Participants will be enrolled by the Principal Investigator, and allocation will be assigned using SNOSE. The allocation will be revealed at the time of intervention by the treating interventional radiologist. This process will ensure that the allocation sequence remains concealed from investigators and participants until assignment, thereby minimizing selection bias. The random allocation sequence will be accessible only to the independent statistician responsible for sequence generation. Personnel involved in participant enrolment and intervention assignment will not have access to the allocation sequence. Allocation will be revealed only after enrolment through sequential opening of sealed envelopes, ensuring that the allocation sequence remains concealed until the point of assignment.</p>
                <p>This study will be conducted as a single-blind trial. Due to the nature of the interventions (use of tumescent anaesthesia in EVLA and absence of it in cyanoacrylate glue), blinding of participants and treating interventional radiologists is not feasible. However, outcome assessors (duplex ultrasound evaluators) and data analysts/statisticians will be blinded to the treatment allocation to minimize assessment and analysis bias. Blinding will be maintained during follow-up assessments and data analysis.</p>
                <p>As participants and treating interventional radiologists are not blinded, unblinding is only applicable to outcome assessors and data analysts. Unblinding will be permissible only in exceptional circumstances where knowledge of the allocated intervention is essential for patient safety or clinical management. The decision to unblind will be made by the Principal Investigator.</p>
                <p>In such cases, the allocation will be revealed through access to the corresponding sealed envelope or study records. All instances of unblinding will be documented, including the reason, timing, and personnel involved. Routine unblinding will not be performed, and blinding will otherwise be maintained throughout outcome assessment and data analysis.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec17">
                <title>Procedure</title>
                <p>All procedures will be performed in the interventional radiology suite under aseptic conditions by experienced interventional radiologists trained in endovenous interventions. The procedures will be performed as single-session interventions following standardized institutional protocols. No separate intervention manual is used; however, all procedural steps have been standardized and described in sufficient detail within this protocol to allow reproducibility. The treatment will be as follows:
                    <list list-type="bullet">
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>Under ultrasound guidance and local anaesthesia, the incompetent perforator will be identified and accessed percutaneously.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>Group A (Laser Group): Tumescent anaesthesia will be given with saline, lidocaine and epinephrine, around the track of the perforator. Bare fibre will be used and laser parameters (laser wavelength and energy in J/cm) will be standardized and documented across all procedures for the ablation of the incompetent perforators. It will be positioned proximal to the entry of the incompetent perforator in the muscle plane and two shots of pulse laser energy will be given to the target segment while withdrawing the fibre.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>Group B (Glue Group): No tumescent anaesthesia will be required. The incompetent perforator will be accessed proximal to its entry into the muscle plane. It will be confirmed by aspiration of blood under ultrasound guidance. NBCA will be prefilled in an insulin syringe. A volume of 0.1&#x2013;0.3&#x00a0;mL per perforator will be injected using a standardized technique under ultrasound guidance. Upon observation of cast formation and cessation of blood flow, the needle will be withdrawn immediately to prevent any adhesion or glue reflux.</p>
                        </list-item>
                    </list>
                </p>
                <p>Following both the procedures, haemostasis will be achieved by immediate compression and thereafter, sterile dressing shall be applied. Patients will be discharged on the same day with instructions for the use of compression stockings and avoidance of strenuous activities for 6&#x00a0;weeks. Reflux status, thrombosis and anatomical closure will be assessed on follow-up duplex ultrasound. Follow-up visits will be performed at 6&#x00a0;months and 1&#x00a0;year. The schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments is summarized in 
                    <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">
Table 1</xref>.</p>
                <table-wrap id="T1" orientation="portrait" position="float">
                    <label>
Table 1. </label>
                    <caption>
                        <title>Schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments (SPIRIT Schedule).</title>
                    </caption>
                    <table content-type="article-table" frame="hsides">
                        <thead>
                            <tr>
                                <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Study phase</th>
                                <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Baseline 
(Pre-procedure)</th>
                                <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Procedure day</th>
                                <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Immediate post-procedure
</th>
                                <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">6&#x00a0;Months follow-up
</th>
                                <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">1&#x00a0;Year follow-up
</th>
                            </tr>
                        </thead>
                        <tbody>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">Informed Consent</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">Clinical Examination</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">CEAP Classification</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">Duplex Ultrasound</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714; (Guidance)</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">Randomization</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">Intervention (EVLA/Glue)</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">Assessment of Closure</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714; (Early)</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">VCSS Scoring</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">Adverse Event Monitoring</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2014;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="middle">&#x2714;</td>
                            </tr>
                        </tbody>
                    </table>
                    <table-wrap-foot>
                        <p>

                            <bold>Abbreviations:</bold> CEAP &#x2013; Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical, Pathophysiological classification; EVLA &#x2013; Endovenous Laser Ablation; NBCA &#x2013; n-butyl cyanoacrylate; VCSS &#x2013; Venous Clinical Severity Score.</p>
                    </table-wrap-foot>
                </table-wrap>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec18">
                <title>Ancillary and post-trial care and compensation</title>
                <p>Participants will receive standard-of-care treatment for their condition throughout the study period. Any complications or adverse events arising during or after the procedure will be managed appropriately as per institutional protocols. No additional ancillary care beyond routine clinical management is specifically planned as part of this trial. Post-trial care will be provided as required based on the clinical condition of the patient, and participants will continue to receive appropriate medical management at the institution. In the event of any trial-related injury, appropriate medical care will be provided, and compensation will be managed in accordance with institutional policies and applicable regulatory guidelines.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec19">
                <title>Criteria for discontinuing or modifying allocated intervention</title>
                <p>The allocated intervention may be discontinued or modified in the following situations:
                    <list list-type="bullet">
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>Occurrence of serious adverse events such as anaphylaxis, suspected intra-arterial injection of cyanoacrylate glue, deep vein thrombosis, or any life-threatening complication.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>Intra-procedural technical difficulties, including inability to access the target perforator, failure to deliver the intervention, or non-progression of the device.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>Clinical deterioration of the patient during or after the procedure requiring deviation from the planned intervention.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>Patient withdrawal of consent at any stage of the study.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>Any other condition where the treating interventional radiologist considers continuation of the procedure unsafe or not in the best interest of the patient.</p>
                        </list-item>
                    </list>
                </p>
                <p>In such cases, appropriate standard-of-care management will be provided. All instances of discontinuation or modification will be documented, including the reason and timing.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec20">
                <title>Strategies to improve and monitor adherence to intervention protocols</title>
                <p>

                    <bold>Trial monitoring</bold>
                </p>
                <p>Trial conduct will be monitored internally by the Principal Investigator to ensure adherence to the study protocol, data accuracy, and participant safety. Monitoring will be performed on a periodic basis throughout the study, including review of data entry, protocol compliance, and reporting of adverse events. Given the single-center design and the use of standard-of-care interventions with established safety profiles, no independent external monitoring body has been constituted. The study may be subject to audit by the Institutional Ethics Committee as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with ethical standards and Good Clinical Practice guidelines.</p>
                <p>Adherence to the allocated intervention will be ensured and monitored at multiple levels. All procedures will be performed according to predefined standardized protocols by trained interventional radiologists to maintain procedural consistency. A procedural checklist will be used intra-operatively to ensure compliance with key technical steps, including correct device positioning, energy delivery parameters (for EVLA), and volume and technique of NBCA.</p>
                <p>Immediate post-procedure documentation will confirm whether the intervention was delivered as per the allocated group. Any protocol deviations will be recorded in the Case Record Form along with justification. Post-procedural adherence will be reinforced through standardized discharge instructions, including use of compression stockings and activity restrictions. Patients will be followed up at predefined intervals (6&#x00a0;months and 1&#x00a0;year), and adherence to follow-up visits will be monitored through scheduled appointments and reminders.</p>
                <p>

                    <bold>Concomitant care permitted and prohibited during the trial</bold>
                </p>
                <p>Concomitant care during the trial will be standardized to minimize confounding effects.</p>
                <p>

                    <bold>Permitted care:</bold>

                    <list list-type="bullet">
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>Use of compression stockings as per standard post-procedure protocol.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>Analgesics and anti-inflammatory medications as clinically indicated.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>Routine ambulation and daily activities as tolerated.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>Standard wound care at the access site.</p>
                        </list-item>
                    </list>
                </p>
                <p>

                    <bold>Prohibited care:</bold>

                    <list list-type="bullet">
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>Any additional endovenous, surgical, or sclerotherapy procedures for the treated limb during the study period.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>Initiation of new invasive venous interventions targeting the same limb.</p>
                        </list-item>
                    </list>
                </p>
                <p>

                    <bold>Conditional care:</bold>

                    <list list-type="bullet">
                        <list-item>
                            <label>&#x2022;</label>
                            <p>In cases where additional intervention becomes medically necessary (e.g., complications or disease progression), such treatment will be provided as per standard clinical practice. These cases will be documented in detail and included in outcome analysis.</p>
                        </list-item>
                    </list>
                </p>
                <p>All concomitant treatments and deviations from protocol will be recorded in the Case Record Form and considered during analysis.</p>
            </sec>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec21">
            <title>Outcomes</title>
            <sec id="sec22">
                <title>Primary outcomes</title>
                <p>

                    <bold>1. Anatomical closure of incompetent perforators:</bold>
                </p>
                <p>Measurement variable: Presence or absence of flow within the treated perforator on duplex ultrasound (binary outcome).</p>
                <p>Analysis metric: Proportion of successfully occluded perforators in each group.</p>
                <p>Method of aggregation: Percentage (%) of patients achieving complete closure.</p>
                <p>Time points: 6&#x00a0;months and 1&#x00a0;year post-procedure.</p>
                <p>

                    <bold>2. Clinical improvement:</bold>
                </p>
                <p>Measurement variable: Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS).</p>
                <p>Analysis metric: Change in VCSS from baseline to follow-up.</p>
                <p>Method of aggregation: Mean&#x00a0;&#x00b1;&#x00a0;standard deviation (or median with interquartile range depending on distribution).</p>
                <p>Time points: Baseline, 6&#x00a0;months, and 1&#x00a0;year.</p>
                <p>Secondary Outcomes.</p>
                <p>

                    <bold>1. Procedure-related complications (safety outcomes):</bold>
                </p>
                <p>Measurement variable: Incidence of complications (e.g., deep vein thrombosis, thrombophlebitis, skin necrosis, nerve injury, allergic reaction).</p>
                <p>Analysis metric: Proportion of patients experiencing at least one complication.</p>
                <p>Method of aggregation: Percentage (%) of patients with complications.</p>
                <p>Time points: Immediate post-procedure, 6&#x00a0;months, and 1&#x00a0;year.</p>
                <p>

                    <bold>2. Procedure duration:</bold>
                </p>
                <p>Measurement variable: Time taken to complete the procedure (in minutes).</p>
                <p>Analysis metric: Mean difference between groups.</p>
                <p>Method of aggregation: Mean&#x00a0;&#x00b1;&#x00a0;standard deviation (or median with interquartile range).</p>
                <p>Time point: Intra-procedural (single measurement).</p>
                <p>Data pertaining to demographics and aforementioned parameters shall be collected and recorded in standardized Case Record Form. All ultrasound assessments will be performed by trained personnel using standardized protocols.</p>
                <p>There is no run-in period or washout phase in this study. All eligible participants will directly undergo randomization followed by intervention. All follow-up assessments will be performed using standardized clinical evaluation and duplex venous Doppler ultrasound by a blinded outcome assessor. The patients will be explained in detail about the trial interventions and follow-up protocol at the time of enrolment in the trial. The dates of follow-up shall be scheduled at the time of discharge including room for delay or early follow-ups (3 to 4&#x00a0;days).</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec23">
                <title>Participant retention and follow-up
</title>
                <p>Strategies to promote participant retention will include clear communication regarding the importance of follow-up visits, provision of written and verbal instructions at discharge, and scheduling of follow-up appointments at the time of enrolment. Reminder calls will be made prior to scheduled visits to improve compliance. All participants will be followed up at predefined intervals (6&#x00a0;months and 1&#x00a0;year), and efforts will be made to minimize loss to follow-up. Missed visits will be actively tracked, and participants will be contacted to reschedule assessments wherever possible. In cases where participants discontinue the intervention or deviate from the assigned protocol, outcome data including anatomical closure status (duplex ultrasound), VCSS score, and occurrence of complications will still be collected whenever feasible. All such cases will be documented, and analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec24">
                <title>Data handling, analysis and reporting of adverse events</title>
                <p>

                    <bold>Data management</bold>
                </p>
                <p>Data will be collected using standardized Case Record Forms and entered into Microsoft Excel by an independent data entry operator and analysed using SPSS version 25.0. Each participant will be assigned a unique study identification number to ensure anonymization, and no personally identifiable information will be used in the analysis dataset. Data quality will be ensured through regular cross-checking of entries and validation procedures, including range and consistency checks. Periodic internal data audits may be performed to ensure completeness and accuracy. Any discrepancies will be verified against source documents and corrected under supervision of the Principal Investigator. Access to the dataset will be restricted to the Principal Investigator and authorized study personnel. Electronic data will be stored in password-protected systems, and physical documents (CRFs) will be stored in locked cabinets within the research office. All data will be securely stored for the duration of the study and retained as per institutional and regulatory requirements. No external data management system is used, and all procedures are described within this protocol.</p>
                <p>

                    <bold>Data monitoring committee</bold>
                </p>
                <p>No independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) has been constituted for this study. This is because both interventions (endovenous laser ablation and cyanoacrylate glue) are established, standard-of-care procedures with well-documented safety profiles, and the study does not involve high-risk experimental interventions. Continuous oversight of trial conduct, participant safety, and data integrity will be provided by the Principal Investigator. Any adverse events or safety concerns will be promptly reported to the Institutional Ethics Committee and the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) as per regulatory requirements. There is no external audit planned. However, the trial may be subjected to internal audit by the Institutional Ethics Committee as and when deemed necessary to ensure compliance to the approved protocol and to the Good Clinical Practice Guidelines. The trial will be coordinated by the Principal Investigator at the coordinating site. No separate steering committee or endpoint adjudication committee has been constituted due to the single-centre design. Data management will be overseen by the Principal Investigator with support from trained study personnel.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec25">
                <title>Interim analysis and stopping guidelines</title>
                <p>No formal interim analysis is planned for this study due to the relatively short duration of follow-up and the use of established, low-risk interventions. There are no predefined stopping guidelines for efficacy or futility. However, in the event of unexpected serious safety concerns or a significantly higher rate of adverse events in any study group, the trial may be reviewed and, if necessary, terminated. The decision to terminate the study will be made by the Principal Investigator in consultation with the Institutional Ethics Committee. No interim results will be routinely generated or accessed during the study.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec26">
                <title>Data collection methods and quality assurance</title>
                <p>Data will be collected prospectively using a standardized Case Record Form (CRF) for all enrolled participants. Baseline demographic and clinical data, procedural details, and follow-up outcomes will be recorded at predefined time points.</p>
                <p>Clinical assessment will include evaluation using the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), a validated and widely used scoring system for chronic venous disease. Imaging data will be obtained using duplex venous Doppler ultrasound, which is the standard and reliable modality for assessing venous reflux and vessel occlusion. To ensure data quality and consistency, all outcome assessments will be performed by trained personnel using standardized protocols. Duplex ultrasound examinations will be conducted by experienced operators, and efforts will be made to maintain uniform technique across assessments. Data accuracy will be ensured through regular cross-verification of entries, and any discrepancies will be resolved by the Principal Investigator. De-identified individual participant data, data dictionary, and statistical code will be made available upon reasonable request after publication, subject to institutional policies.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec27">
                <title>Definition and classification of adverse events</title>
                <p>Adverse events will be prospectively recorded and classified based on severity and clinical impact. Minor complications will include self-limiting events not requiring significant intervention, such as local pain or discomfort, ecchymosis or localized hematoma, mild superficial thrombophlebitis and transient skin erythema or inflammation.</p>
                <p>Major complications will include events requiring medical or interventional management, prolonged hospitalization, or resulting in significant morbidity. These include deep vein thrombosis (DVT), non-target embolization, nerve injury (persistent sensory or motor deficit), severe allergic reaction or anaphylaxis and skin necrosis or ulceration.</p>
                <p>All adverse events will be recorded with respect to time of occurrence (intra-procedural, immediate post-procedural, 6&#x00a0;months, and 1&#x00a0;year follow-up) and graded for severity.</p>
                <p>Adverse events will be assessed using a systematic and structured approach. Active surveillance will be performed at predefined time points, including immediate post-procedure, 6&#x00a0;months, and 1&#x00a0;year follow-up visits, through clinical evaluation and duplex ultrasound examination. In addition, non-systematic reporting will be allowed, whereby patients will be encouraged to report any symptoms or complications occurring between scheduled visits. All adverse events will be identified through a combination of clinical assessment, imaging findings (duplex ultrasound), and patient-reported symptoms. The outcome assessor and treating physician will document and verify all events. Each adverse event will be categorized by severity (minor or major), timing, and clinical impact. Where applicable, causality in relation to the intervention will be assessed by the treating interventional radiologist.</p>
                <p>A standardized Case Record Form will be used to ensure uniform documentation of all adverse events.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec28">
                <title>Data analysis and statistical plan</title>
                <p>Statistical analysis will be performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0. Descriptive statistics will be presented as mean&#x00a0;&#x00b1;&#x00a0;standard deviation or median with interquartile range for continuous variables, depending on data distribution, and as frequency and percentage for categorical variables.</p>
                <p>

                    <bold>Primary outcomes:</bold>
                </p>
                <p>Anatomical closure rates (binary outcome) will be compared between groups using the Chi-square test or Fisher&#x2019;s exact test, as appropriate. The treatment effect will be expressed as risk difference and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals.</p>
                <p>Change in Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) will be analysed using the independent samples t-test or Mann&#x2013;Whitney U test, depending on normality of distribution. Mean difference between groups will be reported.</p>
                <p>

                    <bold>Secondary outcomes:</bold>
                </p>
                <p>Procedure-related complications (harms) will be analysed as categorical variables and compared using the Chi-square test or Fisher&#x2019;s exact test. The incidence of complications will be reported as proportions with 95% confidence intervals.</p>
                <p>Procedure duration (continuous variable) will be compared using the independent samples t-test or Mann&#x2013;Whitney U test, as appropriate.</p>
                <p>A p-value &lt;0.05 will be considered statistically significant. Normality of data distribution will be assessed using the Shapiro&#x2013;Wilk test.</p>
                <p>All patient data shall be anonymized with access to the Principal Investigator only.</p>
                <p>Efforts will be made to minimize missing data through structured follow-up. In case of missing outcome data, primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle with all randomized patients included in the analysis irrespective of protocol adherence and missing data will be handled using appropriate imputation methods (e.g. multiple imputation where feasible), depending on the nature and extent of missingness.</p>
                <p>Pre-specified subgroup analyses may be performed to assess the consistency of treatment effects across different patient groups. Subgroups will include CEAP classification (C3&#x2013;C6) and number of incompetent perforators (single versus multiple). Treatment effects within subgroups will be analysed and compared descriptively. All subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be considered exploratory in nature, and results will be interpreted with caution.</p>
                <p>Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to evaluate the robustness of the primary outcomes, including analysis excluding participants with major protocol deviations and analysis using different methods for handling missing data.</p>
                <p>In cases of protocol deviation, withdrawal, or loss to follow-up, available outcome data will be included in the analysis wherever possible. Missing data will be handled using appropriate statistical methods as described. A secondary per-protocol analysis may be performed including only those participants who completed the intervention and follow-up as per the study protocol, to assess the consistency of results.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec29">
                <title>Handling of missing data</title>
                <p>All analyses will be conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. Efforts will be made to minimize missing data through structured follow-up and participant retention strategies. For the primary analysis, available data will be used. In cases of missing outcome data, appropriate imputation methods will be applied depending on the type and extent of missingness. Sensitivity analyses will be performed to assess the impact of missing data on study outcomes.</p>
            </sec>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec30" sec-type="conclusion">
            <title>Conclusion</title>
            <p>The results of this study will provide evidence regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of cyanoacrylate glue and EVLA in recurrent varicose veins due to residual/recurrent incompetent perforators. It will also help compare the efficacy of both the methods and to evaluate the safety profile.</p>
            <sec id="sec31">
                <title>Dissemination</title>
                <p>The results of the study will be presented in conferences/scientific meetings and will also be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Authorship shall be determined according to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines. The full protocol with anonymized details of patients, after publication, shall be made available upon reasonable request.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec32">
                <title>Study status</title>
                <p>The study is currently recruiting and in follow-up phase, expected to be completed in July 2026 (Protocol version 1.0 dated 05.07.2025).</p>
                <sec id="sec33">
                    <title>Ethical considerations</title>
                    <p>Ethical approval and trial registration details are described in the main manuscript.</p>
                </sec>
            </sec>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec34">
            <title>Role of sponsor and funders</title>
            <p>The sponsoring institution has no role in the design of the study, data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, or preparation of the manuscript.</p>
            <p>All study-related decisions, including data analysis and publication, will be made independently by the investigators.</p>
        </sec>
    </body>
    <back>
        <sec id="sec37" sec-type="data-availability">
            <title>Data availability</title>
            <sec id="sec38">
                <title>Underlying data</title>
                <p>No data are associated with this article.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec39">
                <title>Extended data</title>
                <p>None.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec40">
                <title>Reporting guidelines</title>
                <p>SPIRIT 2025 guidelines were used.
                    <sup>
                        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
                    </sup>
                </p>
                <p>The completed SPIRIT checklist is available in a public repository.</p>
                <p>Repository: Zenodo.</p>
                <p>Title: SPIRIT Checklist for: NBCA vs EVLA in Recurrent Varicose Veins RCT.</p>
                <p>Nirwan LK, Banode P. SPIRIT 2025 Checklist for: NBCA vs EVLA in Recurrent Varicose Veins RCT. Zenodo; 2026.</p>
                <p>

                    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19713002">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19713002</ext-link>.
                    <sup>
                        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
                    </sup>
                </p>
                <p>Data are available under the terms of the 
                    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/">Creative Commons Zero &#x201c;No rights reserved&#x201d; data waiver</ext-link> 

                    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode">(CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication)</ext-link>.</p>
                <p>Trial Sponsor.</p>
                <p>The study is an investigator-initiated trial, does not receive external funding and is conducted at single centre Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Sawangi, Maharashtra, India, which will serve as the coordinating site.</p>
                <p>

                    <bold>Sponsor Contact:</bold>
                </p>
                <p>Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research</p>
                <p>Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha, Maharashtra, India</p>
                <p>Email: 
                    <email xlink:href="mailto:lalitnirwan@gmail.com">lalitnirwan@gmail.com</email>
                </p>
            </sec>
        </sec>
        <ack>
            <title>Acknowledgements</title>
            <p>None.</p>
        </ack>
        <ref-list>
            <title>References*</title>
            <ref id="ref1">
                <label>1</label>
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Robertson</surname>
                            <given-names>L</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Evans</surname>
                            <given-names>C</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Fowkes</surname>
                            <given-names>FG</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Epidemiology of chronic venous disease.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Phlebology.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2008</year>;<volume>23</volume>:<fpage>103</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>111</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1258/phleb.2007.007061</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref2">
                <label>2</label>
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Beebe-Dimmer</surname>
                            <given-names>JL</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Pfeifer</surname>
                            <given-names>JR</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Engle</surname>
                            <given-names>JS</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>The epidemiology of chronic venous insufficiency and varicose veins.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Ann. Epidemiol.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2005</year>;<volume>15</volume>:<fpage>175</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>184</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.annepidem.2004.05.015</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref3">
                <label>3</label>
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Shepherd</surname>
                            <given-names>AC</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Gohel</surname>
                            <given-names>MS</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Hamish</surname>
                            <given-names>M</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Endovenous treatments for varicose veins--over-taking or over-rated?</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Phlebology.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2010</year>;<volume>25</volume>(<issue>1</issue>):<fpage>38</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>43</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20118345</pub-id>
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1258/phleb.2009.008091</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref4">
                <label>4</label>
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Kostas</surname>
                            <given-names>T</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Ioannou</surname>
                            <given-names>CV</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Touloupakis</surname>
                            <given-names>E</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Recurrent varicose veins after surgery: A new appraisal of a common and complex problem in vascular surgery.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2004</year>;<volume>27</volume>:<fpage>275</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>282</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">14760596</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref5">
                <label>5</label>
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Negus</surname>
                            <given-names>D</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Recurrent varicose veins: a national problem.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Br. J. Surg.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>1993</year>;<volume>80</volume>(<issue>7</issue>):<fpage>823</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>824</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8369909</pub-id>
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/bjs.1800800705</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref6">
                <label>6</label>
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Fischer</surname>
                            <given-names>R</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Chandler</surname>
                            <given-names>JG</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>De Maeseneer</surname>
                            <given-names>MG</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>The unresolved problem of recurrent saphenofemoral reflux.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">J. Am. Coll. Surg.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2002</year>;<volume>195</volume>(<issue>1</issue>):<fpage>80</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>94</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">12113548</pub-id>
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01188-2</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref7">
                <label>7</label>
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Allaf</surname>
                            <given-names>N</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Welch</surname>
                            <given-names>M</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Recurrent varicose veins: Inadequate surgery remains a problem.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Phlebology.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2005</year>;<volume>20</volume>:<fpage>138</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>140</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1258/0268355054985820</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref8">
                <label>8</label>
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Geier</surname>
                            <given-names>B</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Olbrich</surname>
                            <given-names>S</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Barbera</surname>
                            <given-names>L</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Validity of the macroscopic identification of neovascularization at the saphenofemoral junction by the operating surgeon.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">J. Vasc. Surg.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2005</year>;<volume>41</volume>:<fpage>64</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>68</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15696046</pub-id>
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jvs.2004.10.032</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref9">
                <label>9</label>
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Creton</surname>
                            <given-names>D</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Surgery for recurrent saphenofemoral incompetence using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene patch interposition in front of the femoral vein: Long-term outcome in extremities.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Phlebology.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2002</year>;<volume>16</volume>:<fpage>93</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>97</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/026835550201600302</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref10">
                <label>10</label>
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Namur</surname>
                            <given-names>J</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Laurent</surname>
                            <given-names>A</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Agents d&#x2019;embolisation Radiologie et imagerie m&#x00e9;dicale: Principes et techniques&#x2014;Radioprotection.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Encycl Med Chir.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2022</year>;<volume>4</volume>:<fpage>35</fpage>.</mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref11">
                <label>11</label>
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Chan</surname>
                            <given-names>A-W</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Boutron</surname>
                            <given-names>I</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Hopewell</surname>
                            <given-names>S</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">BMJ.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2025</year>;<volume>389</volume>:<fpage>e081477</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">40294953</pub-id>
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1136/bmj-2024-081477</pub-id>
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="pmcid">PMC12035670</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref12">
                <label>12</label>
                <mixed-citation publication-type="other">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Nirwan</surname>
                            <given-names>LK</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Banode</surname>
                            <given-names>P</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>SPIRIT 2025 Checklist for: NBCA vs EVLA in Recurrent Varicose Veins RCT.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Zenodo.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2026</year>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5281/zenodo.19713002</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
        </ref-list>
    </back>
    <sub-article article-type="reviewer-report" id="report487543">
        <front-stub>
            <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5256/f1000research.199056.r487543</article-id>
            <title-group>
                <article-title>Reviewer response for version 1</article-title>
            </title-group>
            <contrib-group>
                <contrib contrib-type="author">
                    <name>
                        <surname>Lane</surname>
                        <given-names>Tristan</given-names>
                    </name>
                    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="r487543a1">1</xref>
                    <role>Referee</role>
                </contrib>
                <aff id="r487543a1">
                    <label>1</label>Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, England, UK</aff>
            </contrib-group>
            <author-notes>
                <fn fn-type="conflict">
                    <p>
                        <bold>Competing interests: </bold>No competing interests were disclosed.</p>
                </fn>
            </author-notes>
            <pub-date pub-type="epub">
                <day>17</day>
                <month>6</month>
                <year>2026</year>
            </pub-date>
            <permissions>
                <copyright-statement>Copyright: &#x00a9; 2026 Lane T</copyright-statement>
                <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
                <license xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
                    <license-p>This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</license-p>
                </license>
            </permissions>
            <related-article ext-link-type="doi" id="relatedArticleReport487543" related-article-type="peer-reviewed-article" xlink:href="10.12688/f1000research.180447.1"/>
            <custom-meta-group>
                <custom-meta>
                    <meta-name>recommendation</meta-name>
                    <meta-value>approve-with-reservations</meta-value>
                </custom-meta>
            </custom-meta-group>
        </front-stub>
        <body>
            <p>This is an interesting proposal for a study, it is designed to specifically investigate the treatment of perforating veins.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> I have some suggestions that will hopefully improve the study plan.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> There appears to be no vascular surgeon involved in this study, which therefore raise questions of patient selection and intervention options.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Introduction:</p>
            <p> The rate of recurrent varicose veins is extremely high, and that may be because the literature quoted is over 20 years old, and prior to the advent of endovascular treatment &#x2013; refs 5-9, I would advise updating them.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Standard of care around the world, now tends to be endovenous ablation with tributary management at the time (foam sclerotherapy and / or phlebectomy).&#x00a0; Open surgery is far less common in most surgeons hands.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> The management of perforators is extremely controversial, as the authors will know.&#x00a0; Few would proceed with perforator intervention, without exhausting treatment of truncal and tributary veins.&#x00a0; The complication rates are higher and the patients outcome benefit lower.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Method &#x2013; please rewrite this appropriately so that study design etc is in methodology.</p>
            <p> Patient selection &#x2013; why are patients on anticoagulants excluded?&#x00a0; This is not necessary and will reduce your patient pool by 30%.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Primary outcome &#x2013; you can only have one.&#x00a0; Technical success is not a patient outcome.&#x00a0; VCSS is a clinician completed outcome.&#x00a0; You state you are assessing QOL outcomes but then do not include them.&#x00a0; Please rewrite and assess.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> How are patients deemed to have veins recurrent due to perforators?&#x00a0; Are you treating signs (C3-6) or symptoms?&#x00a0; Are patients recruited on the day of intervention, or in the clinic prior to treatment &#x2013; if the clinic is that the Vascular Surgery clinic or the Radiology clinic?&#x00a0; Please rewrite this so that the patient sample is clearer &#x2013; the general medical clinic and vascular surgery clinic information should come earlier.&#x00a0; Do vascular surgeons not perform endovenous techniques in your institution (as they do worldwide?).</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> What is your criteria for incompetent perforating veins requiring specific laser or glue treatment?</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Sample Size:</p>
            <p> This is unreferenced.&#x00a0; This needs a lot of work for optimisation as your attrition rate is far too low &#x2013; loss of 3 patients at 1 year is unfeasible in clinical studies, especially venous studies.&#x00a0; What work are you referencing where laser ablation or cyanoacrylate occlusion of perforating veins has these values.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Treatment method:</p>
            <p> Are you using radial firing or front firing laser fibres?</p>
            <p> What type / brand of cyanoacrylate is being used?&#x00a0; What standardised technique are you using &#x2013; there are no references provided for either.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> I suspect with your parameters chosen that you will not achieve your aim.&#x00a0; As it is not stated it appears you are doing a superiority study, but I suspect you actually mean to perform a non-inferiority study, based on the text.&#x00a0; Please clarify and reference appropriately for whichever goal you have.</p>
            <p>Is the study design appropriate for the research question?</p>
            <p>Yes</p>
            <p>Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?</p>
            <p>Yes</p>
            <p>Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?</p>
            <p>Partly</p>
            <p>Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?</p>
            <p>Not applicable</p>
            <p>Reviewer Expertise:</p>
            <p>Vascular Surgery, Endovenous interventions, Patient outcomes</p>
            <p>I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.</p>
        </body>
    </sub-article>
    <sub-article article-type="reviewer-report" id="report487545">
        <front-stub>
            <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5256/f1000research.199056.r487545</article-id>
            <title-group>
                <article-title>Reviewer response for version 1</article-title>
            </title-group>
            <contrib-group>
                <contrib contrib-type="author">
                    <name>
                        <surname>Bontinis</surname>
                        <given-names>Vangelis</given-names>
                    </name>
                    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="r487545a1">1</xref>
                    <role>Referee</role>
                    <uri content-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5349-5367</uri>
                </contrib>
                <aff id="r487545a1">
                    <label>1</label>Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece</aff>
            </contrib-group>
            <author-notes>
                <fn fn-type="conflict">
                    <p>
                        <bold>Competing interests: </bold>No competing interests were disclosed.</p>
                </fn>
            </author-notes>
            <pub-date pub-type="epub">
                <day>12</day>
                <month>6</month>
                <year>2026</year>
            </pub-date>
            <permissions>
                <copyright-statement>Copyright: &#x00a9; 2026 Bontinis V</copyright-statement>
                <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
                <license xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
                    <license-p>This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</license-p>
                </license>
            </permissions>
            <related-article ext-link-type="doi" id="relatedArticleReport487545" related-article-type="peer-reviewed-article" xlink:href="10.12688/f1000research.180447.1"/>
            <custom-meta-group>
                <custom-meta>
                    <meta-name>recommendation</meta-name>
                    <meta-value>approve-with-reservations</meta-value>
                </custom-meta>
            </custom-meta-group>
        </front-stub>
        <body>
            <p>
                <list list-type="order">
                    <list-item>
                        <p>The EVLA comparator is insufficiently defined. The protocol should specify wavelength, fibre type, power, LEED, energy-delivery mode, and pullback technique.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>The assumed 75% EVLA closure rate is not adequately justified. If a contemporary 1470 nm EVLA system is planned, this estimate appears too low unless supported by perforator-specific evidence.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>The sample-size calculation should be revised or better justified. It assumes 75% closure for EVLA and 90% for NBCA, but recent 1470 nm EVLA evidence reports high truncal and GSV occlusion outcomes. Use Relevant references (1 &amp; 2).</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>The protocol should distinguish truncal EVLA evidence from perforator EVLA evidence. Truncal 1470 nm EVLA studies can inform the plausibility of the control-event rate, but they cannot directly justify closure assumptions for recurrent or residual incompetent perforators.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>&#x201c;Recurrent varicose veins&#x201d; is insufficiently defined. The protocol should state the previous treatment modality after which recurrence occurred, including high ligation and stripping, EVLA, RFA, UGFS, cyanoacrylate closure, phlebectomy, perforator surgery, or mixed prior interventions.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>Residual disease should be distinguished from true recurrence. A residual incompetent perforator after incomplete prior treatment is not equivalent to a newly recurrent perforator after initially successful treatment.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>The protocol should clarify whether recurrence arises from the SFJ/GSV, perforators, or both. The systematic review on recurrent varicose vein disease arising from the SFJ or GSV is relevant and should be cited for recurrence context but not used as direct evidence for perforator closure assumptions.&#x00a0;</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>Patients with residual or recurrent truncal reflux should be clearly excluded, treated separately, or adjusted for in the analysis. Otherwise, VCSS improvement cannot be confidently attributed to perforator treatment.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>The definition of an incompetent perforator is incomplete. The protocol should specify reflux duration, diameter threshold, anatomical location, and relationship to the recurrent varicosities.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>The unit of analysis should be clarified. If patients have multiple treated perforators, the authors should state whether closure is analysed per patient or per perforator.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>If multiple perforators are treated in the same patient, the analysis should account for clustering. A simple comparison of proportions would not be appropriate.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>The follow-up schedule should include early duplex assessment, preferably at 7&#x2013;14 days, to detect early DVT, glue extension, thrombophlebitis, or technical failure.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>The statistical plan should be strengthened. VCSS is measured repeatedly, so baseline-adjusted or repeated-measures analysis would be preferable to simple between-group comparisons.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>Adverse-event definitions require greater precision, particularly for DVT, glue extension, non-target embolization, nerve injury, skin necrosis, thrombophlebitis, and allergic reaction.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>The trial registration date is inconsistent between the abstract and ethics section and should be corrected.</p>
                    </list-item>
                    <list-item>
                        <p>Overall, the study question is relevant, but the protocol requires major clarification of the EVLA technique, recurrence definition, closure-rate assumptions, unit of analysis, and early safety assessment.</p>
                    </list-item>
                </list>
            </p>
            <p>Is the study design appropriate for the research question?</p>
            <p>Yes</p>
            <p>Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?</p>
            <p>No</p>
            <p>Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?</p>
            <p>No</p>
            <p>Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?</p>
            <p>Partly</p>
            <p>Reviewer Expertise:</p>
            <p>Vascular Surgery - Venous diseases</p>
            <p>I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.</p>
        </body>
        <back>
            <ref-list>
                <title>References</title>
                <ref id="rep-ref-487545-1">
                    <label>1</label>
                    <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                        <person-group person-group-type="author"/>:
                        <article-title>Mid-term and Long-term Outcomes of Endovenous Laser Ablation Utilizing a 1470 nm Laser a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</article-title>.
                        <source>
                            <italic>Journal of Endovascular Therapy</italic>
                        </source>.<year>2026</year>;<volume>33</volume>(<issue>3</issue>) :
                        <elocation-id>10.1177/15266028241305955</elocation-id>
                        <fpage>1126</fpage>-<lpage>1137</lpage>
                        <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/15266028241305955</pub-id>
                    </mixed-citation>
                </ref>
                <ref id="rep-ref-487545-2">
                    <label>2</label>
                    <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                        <person-group person-group-type="author"/>:
                        <article-title>Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) 980 nm versus 1470 nm and the impact of fiber type: a systematic review and meta-analysis</article-title>.
                        <source>
                            <italic>Lasers in Medical Science</italic>
                        </source>.<year>2024</year>;<volume>39</volume>(<issue>1</issue>) :
                        <elocation-id>10.1007/s10103-024-04112-0</elocation-id>
                        <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s10103-024-04112-0</pub-id>
                    </mixed-citation>
                </ref>
                <ref id="rep-ref-487545-3">
                    <label>3</label>
                    <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                        <person-group person-group-type="author"/>:
                        <article-title>Interventions for the treatment of recurrent varicose vein disease arising from the saphenofemoral junction or the great saphenous vein: a systematic review and meta-analysis</article-title>.
                        <source>
                            <italic>International Angiology</italic>
                        </source>.<year>2024</year>;<volume>43</volume>(<issue>5</issue>) :
                        <elocation-id>10.23736/S0392-9590.24.05323-9</elocation-id>
                        <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.23736/S0392-9590.24.05323-9</pub-id>
                    </mixed-citation>
                </ref>
            </ref-list>
        </back>
    </sub-article>
    <sub-article article-type="reviewer-report" id="report485331">
        <front-stub>
            <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5256/f1000research.199056.r485331</article-id>
            <title-group>
                <article-title>Reviewer response for version 1</article-title>
            </title-group>
            <contrib-group>
                <contrib contrib-type="author">
                    <name>
                        <surname>Whiteley</surname>
                        <given-names>Mark S</given-names>
                    </name>
                    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="r485331a1">1</xref>
                    <role>Referee</role>
                    <uri content-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6727-6245</uri>
                </contrib>
                <aff id="r485331a1">
                    <label>1</label>The Whiteley Clinic, Guildford, England, UK</aff>
            </contrib-group>
            <author-notes>
                <fn fn-type="conflict">
                    <p>
                        <bold>Competing interests: </bold>No competing interests were disclosed.</p>
                </fn>
            </author-notes>
            <pub-date pub-type="epub">
                <day>10</day>
                <month>6</month>
                <year>2026</year>
            </pub-date>
            <permissions>
                <copyright-statement>Copyright: &#x00a9; 2026 Whiteley MS</copyright-statement>
                <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
                <license xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
                    <license-p>This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</license-p>
                </license>
            </permissions>
            <related-article ext-link-type="doi" id="relatedArticleReport485331" related-article-type="peer-reviewed-article" xlink:href="10.12688/f1000research.180447.1"/>
            <custom-meta-group>
                <custom-meta>
                    <meta-name>recommendation</meta-name>
                    <meta-value>approve-with-reservations</meta-value>
                </custom-meta>
            </custom-meta-group>
        </front-stub>
        <body>
            <p>This is a laudable attempt to investigate the optimal way to treat incompetent perforator veins (IPVs) in patients with recurrent venous reflux disease after previous surgery (Clearly not just "varicose veins", as they include C3-C6).</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Comments:&#x00a0;</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> 1 - There is a major flaw in the protocol, namely the inclusion and exclusion criteria - here lumped together as "Eligibility criteria".</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> The current protocol doesn't state that the patients with recurrent venous reflux ("varicose veins") must have at least one incompetent perforator contributing to the recurrence. Furthermore, it appears to allow for any pattern of recurrence - not just that due to IPVs.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> As it is currently written, patients with recurrent C3-C6 disease over 18 years old can be recruited, even if they don't have an IPV. As there is no control in the eligibility as to what other sources of recurrent disease may be present and need treatment, then the change in clinical outcome (VCSS) should not be a primary outcome, but a secondary outcome.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> 2 - The follow-up is only 1 year - many recurrences only show 2-3 years or more - especially if phlebectomies or foam sclerotherapy are performed adjunctively. I would suggest interim reporting at 1 year, but aim to report additionally at 3 and 5 years.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> 3 - Objectives - it is currently stated that:&#x00a0;</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Primary objective:</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> &#x2022; To compare the anatomical closure rates of incompetent perforators at 6 months and 1 year post-procedure, as confirmed using duplex ultrasound.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> &#x2022; To assess improvement in clinical symptoms using the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) at 6 months and 1 year.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Secondary objective:</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> &#x2022; To evaluate the safety profile by assessing procedure-related complications (immediate, at 6 months, and at 1 year) following each treatment modality.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> &#x2022; To assess and compare the duration of the procedure for both treatment modalities.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Surely the wrong way round?</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> The conclusion of the abstract states: "This trial will provide evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of cyanoacrylate glue versus EVLA, potentially guiding optimal management of recurrent varicose veins." Therefore, technical closure and safety should be the primary outcomes.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Also, as discussed above, clinical outcomes can be due to other factors such as de novo reflux (disease progression), or failure of treatment of other elements of reflux that haven't been excluded in the eligibility criteria; this should be a secondary outcome measure. Hence I would suggest:</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Primary objective:</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> &#x2022; To compare the anatomical closure rates of incompetent perforators at 6 months and 1 year post-procedure, as confirmed using duplex ultrasound.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> &#x2022; To evaluate the safety profile by assessing procedure-related complications (immediate, at 6 months, and at 1 year) following each treatment modality.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Secondary objective:</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> &#x2022; To assess improvement in clinical symptoms using the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) at 6 months and 1 year.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> &#x2022; To assess and compare the duration of procedure for both the treatment modalities.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> 4 - Eligibility criteria:</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Why restrict to C3-C6 - the title states "recurrent varicose veins"; hence, C2 should be included.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> 5 - This may seem pedantic, but as this is in a scientific paper, the quote in the introduction that "N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NBCA) is a liquid embolic agent that polymerizes upon contact with blood, ..." &#x00a0;is not correct. This might lead people to think that it would not work if the vein is exsanguinated. It is the contact with water that starts the polymerisation via the OH- radical1 (see Ref 1 - Duffy C, et al)</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> 6 - There is controversy as to how to diagnose a significant IPV. The authors have not clearly defined their diagnostic criteria for a significant IPV.&#x00a0;</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> 7 - Although only minor as a scientific point, it is always disappointing when the origins of a technique that is being studied are not referenced or mentioned. The endovenous closure of perforators was first performed in 2001 by me and described in "Kianifard B, Browning L, Holdstock J M, Whiteley MS. Surgical technique and preliminary results of perforator vein closure - TRLOPS (Transluminal Occlusion of perforators. Br J Surg. 2002; 89: 507-526 ". It was then "reinvented" and renamed PAPS in 2007, the subject of the letter "Ref 2 - Whiteley M, 2010").</p>
            <p>Is the study design appropriate for the research question?</p>
            <p>Partly</p>
            <p>Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?</p>
            <p>Partly</p>
            <p>Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?</p>
            <p>Partly</p>
            <p>Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?</p>
            <p>Not applicable</p>
            <p>Reviewer Expertise:</p>
            <p>Endovenous surgery</p>
            <p>I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.</p>
        </body>
        <back>
            <ref-list>
                <title>References</title>
                <ref id="rep-ref-485331-1">
                    <label>1</label>
                    <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                        <person-group person-group-type="author"/>:
                        <article-title>Radical Polymerization of Alkyl 2-Cyanoacrylates</article-title>.
                        <source>
                            <italic>Molecules</italic>
                        </source>.<year>2018</year>;<volume>23</volume>(<issue>2</issue>) :
                        <elocation-id>10.3390/molecules23020465</elocation-id>
                        <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/molecules23020465</pub-id>
                    </mixed-citation>
                </ref>
                <ref id="rep-ref-485331-2">
                    <label>2</label>
                    <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                        <person-group person-group-type="author"/>:
                        <article-title>Letter regarding: &#x2018;The role of perforators in chronic venous insufficiency&#x2019; by TF O'Donnell.Phlebology 2010;25:3&#x2013;10</article-title>.
                        <source>
                            <italic>Phlebology: The Journal of Venous Disease</italic>
                        </source>.<year>2010</year>;<volume>25</volume>(<issue>6</issue>) :
                        <elocation-id>10.1258/phleb.2010.010013</elocation-id>
                        <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1258/phleb.2010.010013</pub-id>
                    </mixed-citation>
                </ref>
            </ref-list>
        </back>
        <sub-article article-type="response" id="comment16397-485331">
            <front-stub>
                <contrib-group>
                    <contrib contrib-type="author">
                        <name>
                            <surname>Nirwan</surname>
                            <given-names>Lalit</given-names>
                        </name>
                    </contrib>
                </contrib-group>
                <author-notes>
                    <fn fn-type="conflict">
                        <p>
                            <bold>Competing interests: </bold>No competing interests declared.</p>
                    </fn>
                </author-notes>
                <pub-date pub-type="epub">
                    <day>10</day>
                    <month>6</month>
                    <year>2026</year>
                </pub-date>
            </front-stub>
            <body>
                <p>
                    <bold>Response to Reviewer</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We sincerely thank Dr. Mark S. Whiteley for his detailed review, constructive comments, and for approving the protocol with reservations. We greatly appreciate the time and expertise invested in evaluating our work. The comments have helped us improve the scientific rigor and clarity of the protocol. We address each point below.</p>
                <p> </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Comment 1: Eligibility Criteria and Inclusion of Incompetent Perforator Veins (IPVs)</bold>
                </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Reviewer Comment:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> The protocol does not clearly state that patients must have at least one incompetent perforator contributing to recurrent venous reflux. As written, patients with recurrent C3&#x2013;C6 disease could be included even without an IPV.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We agree with this important observation. The eligibility criteria will be revised and separated into distinct&#x00a0;
                    <bold>Inclusion Criteria</bold>&#x00a0;and&#x00a0;
                    <bold>Exclusion Criteria</bold>&#x00a0;sections.</p>
                <p> The inclusion criteria will be modified to explicitly state that: 
                    <list list-type="bullet">
                        <list-item>
                            <p>All enrolled patients must have a documented history of previous treatment for varicose veins.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <p>Patients must demonstrate recurrent venous reflux associated with at least one residual or recurrent incompetent perforator vein confirmed on duplex ultrasound.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <p>The presence of at least one incompetent perforator vein must be confirmed on duplex ultrasound before enrolment.</p>
                        </list-item>
                    </list> Patients with recurrent disease due to other reflux sources without a demonstrable incompetent perforator will not be eligible for inclusion. This clarification will ensure that the study population specifically reflects the intended target group.</p>
                <p> </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Comment 2: Duration of Follow-up</bold>
                </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Reviewer Comment:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> One-year follow-up may be insufficient, as many recurrences become evident after 2&#x2013;5 years.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We agree that longer-term follow-up would provide valuable information regarding durability of treatment outcomes.</p>
                <p> We acknowledge the value of longer-term follow-up. While the current study is limited to one-year follow-up because of the approved PhD study framework and institutional timelines, longer-term follow-up at 3 and 5 years may be considered in future studies, subject to feasibility, patient retention, and appropriate approvals. As suggested, 
                    <list list-type="bullet">
                        <list-item>
                            <p>One-year results will be reported as interim findings.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <p>Extended follow-up at 3 years and 5 years will be undertaken considering feasibility, subject to patient retention and institutional approval.</p>
                        </list-item>
                    </list> We thank the reviewer for this valuable recommendation.</p>
                <p> </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Comment 3: Primary and Secondary Objectives</bold>
                </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Reviewer Comment:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> Safety outcomes should be primary outcomes, whereas VCSS improvement should be considered a secondary outcome.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We agree with the reviewer&#x2019;s assessment.</p>
                <p> As suggested, the study objectives will be revised as follows:</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Primary Objectives</bold> 
                    <list list-type="bullet">
                        <list-item>
                            <p>To compare anatomical closure rates of incompetent perforator veins at 6 months and 1 year using duplex ultrasound.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <p>To evaluate the safety profile by assessing procedure-related complications immediately post-procedure, at 6 months, and at 1 year.</p>
                        </list-item>
                    </list> 
                    <bold>Secondary Objectives</bold> 
                    <list list-type="bullet">
                        <list-item>
                            <p>To assess improvement in clinical symptoms using the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) at 6 months and 1 year.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <p>To compare procedure duration between the two treatment modalities.</p>
                        </list-item>
                    </list> We believe this revision better aligns the objectives with the principal efficacy and safety aims of the trial.</p>
                <p> </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Comment 4: Inclusion of CEAP C2 Patients</bold>
                </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Reviewer Comment:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> The title refers to recurrent varicose veins; therefore, CEAP C2 patients should also be included.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We appreciate this suggestion.</p>
                <p> The current study was designed and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee and CTRI with inclusion of CEAP C3&#x2013;C6 patients, as these patients generally represent a more clinically significant population requiring intervention. As patient recruitment has already commenced under the approved protocol, the inclusion criteria will remain unchanged for the present study. We acknowledge this limitation and will discuss it in the manuscript.</p>
                <p> </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Comment 5: Mechanism of NBCA Polymerization</bold>
                </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Reviewer Comment:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> NBCA polymerizes upon contact with water rather than blood.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We thank the reviewer for this correction.</p>
                <p> The statement in the Introduction will be revised to accurately reflect the mechanism of action:</p>
                <p> &#x201c;N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate polymerizes upon contact with water and hydroxyl ions present in biological tissues and blood, resulting in rapid intravascular occlusion.&#x201d;</p>
                <p> The reference by Duffy et al. will be added to support this statement.</p>
                <p> </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Comment 6: Diagnostic Criteria for a Significant Incompetent Perforator Vein</bold>
                </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Reviewer Comment:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> The protocol does not clearly define the criteria for a significant IPV.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We agree that explicit diagnostic criteria should be provided.&#x00a0;Patients are selected based on the following duplex ultrasound criteria for a significant incompetent perforator vein: 
                    <list list-type="bullet">
                        <list-item>
                            <p>Perforator vein diameter &#x2265; 3.5 mm.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <p>Reflux duration &gt; 500 milliseconds.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <p>Demonstration of outward flow from the deep venous system toward the superficial venous system.</p>
                        </list-item>
                    </list> These criteria will be mentioned and will be clearly stated within the eligibility and methodology sections.</p>
                <p> </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Comment 7: Historical Development of Endovenous Perforator Closure</bold>
                </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Reviewer Comment:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> The original description of transluminal occlusion of perforators (TRLOPS) should be acknowledged.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We appreciate this important historical perspective.</p>
                <p> The manuscript will be revised to acknowledge the pioneering work of Kianifard, Browning, Holdstock, and Whiteley describing TRLOPS as one of the earliest reported techniques for endovenous perforator vein closure. The following references will be added to the Introduction and discussion of treatment evolution: 
                    <list list-type="bullet">
                        <list-item>
                            <p>Kianifard B, Browning L, Holdstock JM, Whiteley MS.&#x00a0;
                                <italic>Surgical technique and preliminary results of perforator vein closure (TRLOPS).</italic>&#x00a0;Br J Surg. 2002.</p>
                        </list-item>
                        <list-item>
                            <p>Whiteley MS.&#x00a0;
                                <italic>Letter regarding &#x201c;The role of perforators in chronic venous insufficiency&#x201d;.</italic>&#x00a0;Phlebology. 2010.</p>
                        </list-item>
                    </list> We thank the reviewer for bringing this important historical contribution to our attention.</p>
                <p> </p>
                <p> 
                    <underline>
                        <bold>Final Remarks</bold>
                    </underline>
                </p>
                <p> We are grateful to Dr. Whiteley for his thoughtful review, constructive comments, and valuable recommendations. The manuscript and protocol will be revised accordingly to improve clarity, methodological rigor, and scientific accuracy. We believe these revisions will strengthen the study and enhance its contribution to the field of venous intervention.</p>
                <p> </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>With sincere thanks,</bold>
                </p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Lalit Kumar Nirwan</bold>
                </p>
                <p> Principal Investigator</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Pankaj Banode</bold>
                </p>
                <p> Co-Investigator</p>
            </body>
        </sub-article>
    </sub-article>
</article>
