首页> 外文期刊>Korean journal of radiology : >Radiofrequency versus Ethanol Ablation for Treating Predominantly Cystic Thyroid Nodules: A Randomized Clinical Trial
【24h】

Radiofrequency versus Ethanol Ablation for Treating Predominantly Cystic Thyroid Nodules: A Randomized Clinical Trial

机译:射频消融与乙醇消融治疗主要的囊性甲状腺结节:一项随机临床试验

获取原文
           

摘要

Objective To compare single-session radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and ethanol ablation (EA) for treating predominantly cystic thyroid nodules (PCTNs). Materials and Methods This single-blind, randomized trial was approved by the Institutional Review Board of two centers and informed consent was obtained from all patients before enrollment. Fifty patients with a single PCTN (cystic portion less than 90% and greater than 50%) were randomly assigned to be treated by either RFA (25 patients) or EA (25 patients) at two hospitals. The primary outcome was the tumor volume reduction ratio (%) at the six-month follow-up and the superiority margin was set at 13% (RFA minus EA). Analysis was performed primarily in an intention-to-treat manner. The secondary outcomes were the therapeutic success rate, improvement of symptomatic and cosmetic problems, and the number of major complications. Results The mean volume reduction was 87.5 ± 11.5% for RFA (n = 22) and 82.4 ± 28.6% for EA (n = 24) ( p = 0.710; mean difference [95% confidence interval], 5.1% [-8.0 to 18.2]), indicating no significant difference. Regarding the secondary outcomes, therapeutic success ( p = 0.490), mean symptom ( p = 0.205) and cosmetic scores ( p = 0.710) showed no difference. There were no major complications in either group ( p > 0.99). Conclusion The therapeutic efficacy of RFA is not superior to that of EA; therefore, EA might be preferable as the first-line treatment for PCTNs.
机译:目的比较单次射频消融(RFA)和乙醇消融(EA)治疗主要治疗甲状腺囊性结节(PCTN)的方法。材料和方法这项单盲,随机试验由两个中心的机构审查委员会批准,入组前已从所有患者获得知情同意。五十名患有单个PCTN的患者(囊性部分小于90%且大于50%)被随机分配到两家医院接受RFA(25例)或EA(25例)治疗。主要结果是在六个月的随访中肿瘤体积缩小率(%),优势边际设为13%(RFA减去EA)。分析主要以意向性处理方式进行。次要结果是治疗成功率,症状和美容问题的改善以及主要并发症的数量。结果RFA(n = 22)的平均体积减少为87.5±11.5%,EA(n = 24)的平均体积减少为82.4±28.6%(p = 0.710;平均差异[95%置信区间],5.1%[-8.0至18.2] ]),表示无明显差异。关于次要结局,治疗成功率(p = 0.490),平均症状(p = 0.205)和美容评分(p = 0.710)没有差异。两组均无重大并发症(p> 0.99)。结论RFA的疗效不及EA;因此,EA可能更适合作为PCTN的一线治疗。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号