ArticleThe British journal of radiology2014
Comparison of therapeutic efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinomas between internally cooled 15-G and 17-G single electrodes.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiac tamponade after radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Case report and literature review.Medicine · 2018Review
- Hepatic radiofrequency ablation: in vivo and ex vivo comparisons of 15-gauge (G) and 17-G internally cooled electrodes.The British journal of radiology · 2015Article
- Comparison between the treatment area of electrode used for radiofrequency ablation of liver cancer focusing on 15G cooled-tip and CWT electrode.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the ablation volume, local tumour progression rate and complication rate of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for small hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) using 15-G and 17-G single electrodes.
methodsThis retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and informed consent was waived. We reviewed percutaneous RFA cases for HCCs using 15-G or 17-G electrodes without multiple overlapping ablations. A total of 36 pairs of HCCs matched according to tumour size and active tip length were included. We compared ablation volume and complication rate between the two electrode groups. Cumulative local tumour progression rates were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.
resultsTumour size and ablation time were not significantly different between the 15-G and 17-G groups (p50.661 and p50.793, respectively). However, ablation volume in the 15-G electrode group was larger than that in the 17-G group (14.465.4cm3 vs 8.762.5cm3; p,0.001). No statistical difference in complication rates between the two electrode groups was found. The 10- and 20-month local tumour progression rates were not significantly different between the two groups (2.8% and 5.6% vs 11.1% and 19.3%; p50.166).
conclusionAblation volume by the 15-G electrode was larger than that by the 17-G electrode. However, local tumour progression rate and complication rate were not significantly different between the two electrode groups. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: RFA of HCC using a 15-G electrode is useful to create larger ablation volumes than a 17-G electrode.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.