Adjustable-tip needles versus fixed-tip needles in radiofrequency ablation of symptomatic benign thyroid nodules: a single-center Italian experience.

IF 1.3 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Journal of Ultrasound Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-22 DOI:10.1007/s40477-024-00926-4
Mattia Rossi, Letizia Meomartino, Loredana Pagano, Giulia Follini, Sara Garberoglio, Mauro Maccario, Ruth Rossetto Giaccherino, Roberto Garberoglio
{"title":"Adjustable-tip needles versus fixed-tip needles in radiofrequency ablation of symptomatic benign thyroid nodules: a single-center Italian experience.","authors":"Mattia Rossi, Letizia Meomartino, Loredana Pagano, Giulia Follini, Sara Garberoglio, Mauro Maccario, Ruth Rossetto Giaccherino, Roberto Garberoglio","doi":"10.1007/s40477-024-00926-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>In this retrospective, observational study we aim to compare the outcomes of the RFA treatment of benign thyroid nodules, carried out respectively with the standard fixed-needle approach (FTN) and the adjustable-tip needle technique (ATN), considered a more tailored, quicker and easier technical approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 36 patients who underwent RFA treatment of symptomatic, benign, thyroid nodule, 18 with the ATN and 18 with the FTN approach, respectively. Data about absolute volume reduction, volume reduction rate (VRR) and success rate (defined as VRR ≥ 50%), after 1, 3 and 6 months of follow-up were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our study suggested no substantial difference between the approaches, up to 6 months of follow-up, both in terms of absolute reduction (p = 0.27) and VRR (p = 0.14). These results were confirmed when the success rates, both in terms of 50%-reduction (p = 0.12) and absolute reduction (p = 0.42), was considered. Only at the 6-month evaluation, the FTN procedure showed a better success rate, yet without statistical significance (88.9% vs. 61.1%, p = 0.12). No difference emerged both in terms of patients' satisfaction and safety.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our small experience suggested no substantial difference between ATN and FTN, in terms of outcomes. On the other hand, ATN was considered to be more straightforward and could consequently allow for a shorter operator learning curve.</p>","PeriodicalId":51528,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ultrasound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11333423/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ultrasound","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-024-00926-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: In this retrospective, observational study we aim to compare the outcomes of the RFA treatment of benign thyroid nodules, carried out respectively with the standard fixed-needle approach (FTN) and the adjustable-tip needle technique (ATN), considered a more tailored, quicker and easier technical approach.

Methods: We enrolled 36 patients who underwent RFA treatment of symptomatic, benign, thyroid nodule, 18 with the ATN and 18 with the FTN approach, respectively. Data about absolute volume reduction, volume reduction rate (VRR) and success rate (defined as VRR ≥ 50%), after 1, 3 and 6 months of follow-up were compared.

Results: Our study suggested no substantial difference between the approaches, up to 6 months of follow-up, both in terms of absolute reduction (p = 0.27) and VRR (p = 0.14). These results were confirmed when the success rates, both in terms of 50%-reduction (p = 0.12) and absolute reduction (p = 0.42), was considered. Only at the 6-month evaluation, the FTN procedure showed a better success rate, yet without statistical significance (88.9% vs. 61.1%, p = 0.12). No difference emerged both in terms of patients' satisfaction and safety.

Conclusion: Our small experience suggested no substantial difference between ATN and FTN, in terms of outcomes. On the other hand, ATN was considered to be more straightforward and could consequently allow for a shorter operator learning curve.

无症状良性甲状腺结节射频消融术中可调针尖针与固定针尖针的对比:意大利单中心经验。
目的:在这项回顾性观察研究中,我们旨在比较分别采用标准固定针方法(FTN)和可调针技术(ATN)对良性甲状腺结节进行射频消融(RFA)治疗的结果:我们选取了36名接受RFA治疗的无症状良性甲状腺结节患者,其中18人采用ATN方法,18人采用FTN方法。比较了随访1、3和6个月后的绝对体积缩小率、体积缩小率(VRR)和成功率(定义为VRR≥50%):我们的研究表明,在随访 6 个月后,两种方法在绝对缩小量(P = 0.27)和体积缩小率(VRR)(P = 0.14)方面均无实质性差异。如果考虑到成功率,无论是减少 50%(p = 0.12)还是绝对减少(p = 0.42),这些结果都得到了证实。仅在 6 个月的评估中,FTN 手术的成功率更高,但无统计学意义(88.9% 对 61.1%,p = 0.12)。在患者满意度和安全性方面,两者均无差异:我们的小规模经验表明,ATN 和 FTN 在疗效方面没有实质性差异。另一方面,ATN被认为更简单,因此可以缩短操作者的学习曲线。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Ultrasound
Journal of Ultrasound RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
15.00%
发文量
133
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ultrasound is the official journal of the Italian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (SIUMB). The journal publishes original contributions (research and review articles, case reports, technical reports and letters to the editor) on significant advances in clinical diagnostic, interventional and therapeutic applications, clinical techniques, the physics, engineering and technology of ultrasound in medicine and biology, and in cross-sectional diagnostic imaging. The official language of Journal of Ultrasound is English.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信