ArticleOncology letters2024
Artificial ascites‑assisted microwave ablation for liver cancer adjacent to the diaphragm and perioperative nursing care.
Article in Oncology letters, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous microwave ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma at specific anatomic sites of the liver: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Ultrasound-guided percutaneous cryoablation under local anesthesia: a promising treatment method for symptomatic adenomyosis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous microwave ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma at specific anatomic sites of the liver: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Liver cancer near the deep diaphragm can be difficult to visualize due to the effects of lung gas, which presents a challenge for microwave ablation (MWA). The present study aimed to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of artificial ascites-assisted MWA for treating liver cancer near the deep diaphragm, as well as the significance of perioperative nursing. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent artificial ascites-assisted MWA for liver cancer located near the deep diaphragm between January 2016 and December 2022. Normal saline was utilized as artificial ascites to safeguard the deep diaphragm during MWA. The study recorded the procedural success rate, incidence of major complications, technical efficacy of ablation and local tumor progression (LTP). A total of 62 lesions in 54 patients were included, with 44 men and 10 women, and a mean (± SD) age of 55.64±10.33 years. The ultrasound image quality scores for liver cancer before and after ascites were 3.57±0.79 and 4.89±0.33, respectively, showing a statistically significant difference between the two groups (t=16.324; P<0.05). No diaphragm injury, skin burns at the puncture site or abdominal hemorrhage occurred during the procedure. A single patient developed right-sided pleural effusion, which did not require drainage. The complete ablation rate was 94.4% (51/54) at 1 month post-ablation, with 3 patients experiencing recurrence and receiving additional MWA treatment. The median follow-up time for the patients in this study was 21 months (range, 12-45 months), with a LTP rate of 5.6% (3/54). In conclusion, MWA assisted by artificial ascites is a safe and effective treatment for liver cancer near the deep diaphragm. Furthermore, perioperative treatment and rehabilitation of the patients with high-quality nursing is beneficial.
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.