ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Ethanol ablation for the treatment of thyroglossal duct cysts: follow-up results for longer than 2 years.
Article in European radiology, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound-guided ethanol ablation versus the Sistrunk operation as a primary treatment for thyroglossal duct cysts.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2024Article
- Ultrasound-Guided Ethanol Ablation for Thyroglossal Duct Cyst: A Review of Technical Issues and Potential as a New Standard Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Ethanol Ablation of a Thyroglossal Duct Cyst and Review of the Literature.JCEM case reports · 2023Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of ethanol ablation (EA) for the treatment of thyroglossal duct cysts (TGDCs).
methodsThis retrospective study included 81 consecutive patients diagnosed with and treated for symptomatic TGDCs at two institutions between Jan 2008 and Oct 2018. Preprocedural evaluation included US assessment with calculation of the TGDC volume. EA was performed under US guidance using 99% ethanol. Post-treatment follow-up was scheduled within 3 months, 6 months, and then annually. Immediate success was defined as a volume reduction ratio (VRR; ratio of the volume difference after EA to the initial TGDC volume) > 50% within 3 months. Long-term success was defined as VRR > 50% or resolution or improvement of cosmetic problems and symptoms without recurrence at last follow-up.
resultsSeventy-seven patients underwent EA, and outcomes were assessed in 68 patients with available follow-up data. The immediate success rate of the first EA was 81% (55/68), with a mean VRR within 3 months of 73% ± 31%. One patient (1.5%, 1/68) developed wound inflammation after the first EA. Forty-two patients were followed up for longer than 2 years. For the median follow-up of 69 months (range, 24-131 months), the long-term success rate was 83% (35/42), with a mean VRR at last follow-up of 81% ± 35%. No patients developed malignancy from the ablated TGDCs.
conclusionsEA for treatment of TGDCs achieved acceptable rates of immediate and long-term efficacy with a low complication rate, and can be considered as a first-line treatment for the management of TGDCs. KEY POINTS: • The immediate success rate of EA for the treatment of TGDCs was 81% (55/68), with a mean VRR within 3 months of 73% ± 31%. • For the median follow-up of 69 months (range, 24-131 months), the long-term success rate was 83% (35/42), with a mean VRR at last follow-up of 81% ± 35%. • No patients developed malignancy from the ablated TGDCs but one patient (1.5%, 1/68) developed wound inflammation after the first EA.
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.