ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2024
Ultrasound-guided ethanol ablation versus the Sistrunk operation as a primary treatment for thyroglossal duct cysts.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study compared ethanol ablation (EA) with the Sistrunk operation (SO) with regard to feasibility, treatment efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. The goal was to evaluate whether EA could replace SO as a primary treatment modality for thyroglossal duct cysts (TGDCs).
methodsThis retrospective case-control study included patients with TGDCs who were treated with either EA or SO between 2016 and 2022. The primary outcome variables evaluated were treatment efficacy (as measured by the volume reduction rate [VRR] and treatment success rate), complications, and cost-effectiveness.
resultsA total of 72 patients were enrolled, with 33 in the EA group and 39 in the SO group. The procedure or operation times for the EA and SO groups were 9 and 82 minutes, respectively (P<0.001). At the final follow-up appointment, the VRR was 94.1% for the EA group and 100.0% for the SO group (P<0.001). Treatment success was achieved for 32 patients (97.0%) in the EA group and for all 39 patients (100.0%) in the SO group (P=0.458). The overall complication rates were 0.0% and 17.9% in the EA and SO groups, respectively (P=0.013). The total costs, including all treatment procedures and follow-up ultrasound examinations, were $485 and $1,081.7 for the EA and SO groups, respectively (P<0.001).
conclusionEA demonstrates superiority over SO in terms of feasibility, safety, and costeffectiveness, while maintaining comparable treatment efficacy. Despite the need for multiple treatment sessions in approximately one-quarter of patients, EA can serve as a primary treatment modality for selected patients with TGDCs, supplanting SO.
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.