ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2018
[Percutaneous CT-guided radiofrequency ablation for small renal masses : A retrospective, single center data analysis].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing the therapeutic impact of sublethal radiofrequency hyperthermia in malignant solid tumor treatment.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Two Cases of Strictures after Percutaneous CT-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation for Renal Cell Carcinoma.Case reports in urology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of small renal masses has increased in recent decades. Standard surgical treatment may not be applicable in patients with advanced age or severe comorbidities. Therefore, minimally invasive therapeutic approaches, such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA), may be a therapeutic option for such patients.
objectivesAssessment of oncological and functional outcomes of percutaneous RFA in small renal masses. MATERIALS AND
methodsSingle center evaluation of all RFA performed at the hospital Landesklinikum Baden from 2006-2016.
resultsA total of 98 RFA were performed in 85 patients. Mean patient age was 69.5 years. Median tumor size was 26.2 mm, while the length of hospital stay was 1.4 days. Overall, 96.8% of RFA procedures were considered to be technically complete. Recurrence rate was 17.5%. Most of the recurrences were treated via a second RFA. Complication rates were fairly low as the vast majority of ablations were free of complications (82.7%). Grade I, II and III complications (according to the Clavien-Dindo classification) occurred in 13.3%, 3% and 1%, respectively. A significant deterioration of renal function due to RFA was not observed. Cancer-specific survival rate for renal cell carcinoma was 100%; overall survival was 84.7% after an average follow-up period of more than 3 years.
conclusionRFA is an adequate alternative treatment option for small renal masses in patients unfit to undergo surgical excision. Patients benefit from the low complication rates, preservation of renal function, and short hospital stays.
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.