SynthesisCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Thermal Ablation for Giant Hepatic Hemangiomas: A Meta-Analysis with Subgroup Analysis of Microwave and Radiofrequency Ablation Techniques.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2026. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis meta-analysis aims to evaluate thermal ablation for giant hepatic hemangiomas (GHHs) and compare the clinical outcomes of microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA).
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Eligible studies reporting on patients with GHHs (≥ 4 cm) treated with MWA or RFA were identified through Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Primary outcomes included technical success (complete and accurate execution of the intended MWA or RFA procedure as per the study protocol), safety outcomes, clinical success, and radiological success. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model, with heterogeneity assessed via the I
resultsFourteen studies (925 patients; 33.6% men; mean age: 46.6 years) with 1,010 GHHs were included. The overall technical success rate for thermal ablation was 99.95%, with a major complication rate of 2.21%. Clinical success, defined as symptom resolution or significant improvement, was achieved in 99.85% of patients, while radiological success, defined as at least a 50% reduction in lesion size, was observed in 89.81%. Minor complications were reported in 48.88%, and total complications in 52.43%, while procedure-related morbidity was low at 0.34%. In the subgroup analysis, radiological success was 95.6% in the MWA group and 86.3% in the RFA group (p = 0.073). Major complication rates were 1.99% for MWA and 2.08% for RFA (p = 0.93), while total complication rates were 46.0% and 58.1%, respectively (p = 0.43).
conclusionMWA and RFA are highly effective and safe options for treating GHHs, with excellent technical and clinical success rates. MWA may offer advantages in radiological success and lower complication rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40883579What 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.