Can you make an abstract for the following paper?:

Introduction:
Sclerotherapy is a widely used treatment modality for superficial varicose veins and is often injected as a liquid or foam. It aims to close the veins by damaging the vein walls, causing them to stick together, and blocking the flow of blood. This fades their appearance over time and often multiple treatments are needed.1 Varicose veins are twisted and enlarged veins that appear blue and can cause symptoms ranging from cosmetic concerns to pain and itching for patients.2 Often, varicose veins are present on the legs due to increased pressure from standing and walking leading to the pooling of blood in the lower half of the body.2 However, they can be present on the arms, neck, and upper chest and there’s little data present regarding sclerotherapy use in these areas. 
Sclerotherapy is often a relatively simple and safe procedure, but adverse effects may include erythema, erosion or ulceration, hyperpigmentation, and superficial venous thrombosis.1,3 The majority of adverse effects are minor and inconsequential, mostly short-lasting or cosmetic concerns. In one study, the most common adverse effects were residual pigmentation and matting, with an incidence of 1-10%.4 There have been rare cases of neurological and chest pain following sclerotherapy, but these are isolated and uncommon.5 There is little documentation in the literature of adverse effects associated with sclerotherapy.2,3 Further, adverse effects in the subset of patients who received sclerotherapy off the legs are lacking. 

Results:
We examined prior patient visits in a dermatology practice to see the incidence of adverse effects when sclerotherapy was used as a treatment for varicose veins in locations other than the legs. Treatment locations most commonly seen were hands and chest seen in 40 and 14 patients, respectively. Abdomen, perioral face, forearm, and temple were other less common sites treated amongst our patients.[Table 1] 
58 patients were examined for a total of 88 treatments.[Table 2] Two weeks after the initial treatment, 23 patients followed up for another treatment; 40.9% of them noted coagulum draining at this time, with a mean number of coagula of about 2. Edema was the only adverse effect noted at this time, present in 4.5% of those treated. None of the patients experienced superficial venous thrombosis, erythema, persistent bruising, erosion/ulceration, telangiectatic matting, or post-sclerotherapy hyperpigmentation at a two-week follow-up.[Table 2]
At three months after the initial treatment, 28 patients followed up with 10.7% reporting coagulum drained and a mean number of coagula at two. Several adverse effects were present at this time, with erythema and vein information being the most common, both seen in 10.7%.[Table 2]
A little under 26% of patients followed up two weeks after their initial treatment. At this point, an average of 2.2 coagula were treated and no adverse effects were noted amongst patients. 34.48% of patients followed up three months after their first treatment with an average of 0.67 coagulum treated. Adverse effects seen at this time included erythema (5%), ecchymosis(5%), vein induration(10%), post sclerotherapy hyperpigmentation(10%), and matting(5%). [Table 3] 
Further, 17 of the 58 patients came in for a second treatment. 35% followed up two weeks after their second treatment and had an average of 2 coagula treated. Edema was the only adverse effect seen at this time in 16.7% of patients. 29% of those who received a second treatment followed up three months later, adverse effects noted at this time were erythema(20%), edema(20%), and vein induration(20%) were seen at this time. [Table 3]
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine if there were any significant differences in the average number of coagula that were drained across the sclerotherapy treatments in all body regions.[Table 3] The ANOVA was conducted for the first three sclerotherapy treatments (TX1, TX2, and TX3), included data from both the 2-week and 3-month follow-ups, and had an alpha level of 0.05. The remaining treatments were omitted from the statistical analysis due to limited data as less patients showed up for further treatments after the third one. The analysis yielded an F-value of 5.198 and a p-value of 0.006.

Discussion:
Our results indicate sclerotherapy treatment for venous insufficiency in locations other than the legs has the potential for adverse events. The adverse effects noticed in our study are similar to the adverse effects of sclerotherapy used on the legs seen in the literature including erythema, edema, matting, amongst others. Similar to what is reported in the literature, our seen adverse effects are minor and not life threatening.
Two weeks after their initial treatment, patients noted no adverse effects. However, three months after initial treatment, several adverse effects were observed including edema, erythema, post-sclerotherapy hyperpigmentation, and matting. These results suggest that adverse events were more likely as time from treatment increased. [Table 3] Further, this trend was also seen when patients received their second treatment.[Table 3]
Interestingly, the average number of coagula treated from the first to the second treatment visit did go down from 2.2 to 2. This may indicate that patients noted an improvement in appearance and required less treatment at their second treatment.
The only adverse event that decreased from two weeks of follow-up to three months of follow-up was edema, decreasing from 4.5% at two weeks to 3.6 at three months.[Table 2] 
Additionally, the coagulum drained decreased from two weeks follow up to three months follow up with 40.9% of those treated at two weeks noting coagulum drained versus 10.7% at three months.
In the one-way ANOVA, the F-value of 5.189 is larger than the critical F-value of 3.029, indicating a significant result of the statistical test.[Table 3] Further, the p-value of 0.006 confirmed that there was indeed a significant difference in the average number of coagula drained between the first three sclerotherapy treatments. This suggests that for patients, coming in for an additional treatment may significantly reduce the coagula that may need to be drained, although this is a relatively minor side effect of sclerotherapy.
Our study indicates the adverse effects of sclerotherapy treatment for varicose veins on locations of the legs are similar to those for sclerotherapy use on the legs and are relatively minor. Further studies are needed to elucidate if the potential for adverse events is more likely depending on the location of treatment as well as mechanism of treatment such as injected foam or solution. Limitations such as a smaller sample size when performing statistical analyses are also factors in not obtaining more conclusive results from our study, particularly in the one-way ANOVA. While a significant result was returned, the analysis was restricted to only the first three treatments. Future studies can explore this limitation by recruiting a larger number of patients over a longer period of time, thereby collecting more data for such analysis. As a result, patients may be more empowered to make definitive decisions on whether to continue their sclerotherapy treatments or seek treatment for certain areas of the body.