4.7 Article

Efficacy on radiofrequency ablation according to the types of benign thyroid nodules

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-01593-9

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Foundation of cutting-edge technologies of Henan province [(201702067)/(SB201902003)]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of Henan province [202102310437, 202300410451]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The clinical outcomes of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for symptomatic benign thyroid nodules (BTNs) were evaluated in a retrospective observational study. The results showed that RFA was effective in treating symptomatic benign solid or cystic-solid nodules, with significantly better outcomes in cystic-solid nodules compared to solid nodules at the 3rd and 6th month.
Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been recommended as minimally invasive treatment for patients with symptomatic benign thyroid nodules (BTNs) because of the large number of clinical applications. This retrospective observational study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of RFA for BTNs. From 2014 to 2019, a sample size of 1289 patients treated by RFA were 262 ones with solid nodules and 1027 ones with cystic-solid nodule, respectively. The efficacy including the nodule maximal diameter reduction ratio (MDRR), the volume reduction ratio (VRR) and the cosmetic scores reduction ratio (CSRR). The results of the nodule MDRR and VRR in the cystic-solid nodule group were significantly better than those in the solid nodule group at the 3rd and 6th month, and the CSRR in the two groups showed statistically significant difference at the 3rd month. In a word, RFA is an effective method for symptomatic benign solid or cystic-solid nodules. The achieved MDRR and VRR in the cystic-solid nodule group were significantly better than those in the solid nodule group at the 3rd and 6th month.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available