ArticleCase reports in plastic surgery & hand surgery2025
The efficacy and safety of microwave ablation in managing osteoid osteoma: a systematic review.
Article in Case reports in plastic surgery & hand surgery, 2025. 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.
- Radiofrequency vs. Microwave Ablation in Osteoid Osteoma: Comparative Outcomes and Prognostic Factors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Percutaneous ablation of intrathyroidal parathyroid adenoma: A case report and brief review of the literature.Medicine internationalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMicrowave ablation (MWA) utilizes electromagnetic methods to destroy tumors, employing devices operating at 900 MHz or above frequencies. MWA has emerged as a recent alternative for treating osteoid osteoma (OO), providing similar accessibility, safety, and technical effectiveness as radiofrequency ablation. This systematic review aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MWA in treating OO.
methodsA systematic review of published studies on the use of MWA in managing OO was conducted. Studies were excluded if they were 1) not written in English, 2) case reports, 3) lacked adequate peer review, or 4) consisted solely of abstracts. Before full-text assessment, titles, and abstracts were screened. Extracted data included author, year, study design, patient count, age, gender, OO site, ablation power (watts), duration, complications, outcome, and recurrence. The data were analyzed and presented as means, frequencies, and percentages.
resultsEight studies, including 143 cases, met the inclusion criteria; among these cases, 59.44% were male, and the mean age was 19.03 ± 7.09. Most of the OOs were in the femur, 54.54%. MWA at 60 W was the prevailing power setting, utilized in 37 cases (25.87%), with an ablation time of 90 s for 95 cases (66.43%). Clinical success was achieved in 137 (95.80%) cases, with recurrence observed in 4 cases (2.80%). However, 16 minor and major complications were observed despite the overall success.
conclusionPercutaneous MWA may represent an efficient choice for the minimally invasive management of OO, demonstrating a minimal risk of complications and recurrence.
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.