ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2022
Evaluation of short- and medium-term efficacy and complications of ultrasound-guided ablation for small liver cancer.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microwave ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: A single-center experience and outcomes.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2025Article
- Short-term efficacy of microwave ablation in the treatment of liver cancer and its effect on immune function.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Use of a handheld system for interventional ultrasound with puncture and biopsy in an in vitro liver model.Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo ensure clinical efficacy and prolong patient survival, treatments such as surgery and microwave ablation (MWA) are used for early liver cancer. MWA is preferred because it effectively preserves the normal liver tissue and causes transient coagulation necrosis of local liver tumor cells. However, due to technical limitations, the cancerous liver tissue cannot be completely ablated; therefore, the probability of local tumor recurrence is high.
aimTo investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous MWA in the treatment of small liver cancer.
methodsA total of 118 patients treated for small liver cancer in The Central Hospital of Yongzhou from January 2018 to April 2019 were selected. Sixty-six patients received ultrasound-guided percutaneous MWA (MWA group) and 52 received laparoscopic surgery (laparoscope group). The operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, and medical expenses of both groups were statistically analyzed. Serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total bilirubin (TBIL), albumin (ALB), alpha fetal protein (AFP), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and peripheral blood regulatory T lymphocytes (Treg) levels were evaluated pre- and post-operatively. The cross-sectional area of tumors measured before and after ablation was analyzed statistically; the therapeutic effect was compared between both groups in terms of surgical complications, 2-year progression-free survival rate, and overall survival rate.
resultsThe operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, and medical expenses in the MWA group were lower than those of the laparoscope group, and the differences were significant (
conclusionThe effects of ultrasound-guided percutaneous MWA in the treatment of small liver cancer are similar to those of laparoscopic surgery. However, ablation causes less trauma and liver dysfunction.
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.