ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2026
Efficacy of microwave
Article in American journal of translational research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of microwave
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 284 patients who were divided into a combined group (MWA plus curettage, n=156) and a control group (curettage alone, n=128). Baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, complications, local recurrence, bone healing status, and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores were compared. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method, and independent risk factors were evaluated using Cox regression analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed based on pathologic type and lesion size.
resultsThe combined group had a significantly lower local recurrence rate than the control group (7.1% vs. 18.0%, P=0.008) and an improved RFS HR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.19-0.79). MSTS scores were significantly higher in the combined group at all postoperative time points (all P>0.05). Bone healing time was shorter in the combined group (4.3±1.5 vs. 5.0±1.5 months, P<0.001), with a lower rate of delayed union (5.8% vs. 18.8%, P=0.001). Multivariable analysis identified MWA as an independent protective factor (HR=0.25, P<0.001), while soft tissue involvement, lesion diameter >6 cm, and extensive cortical destruction were independent risk factors. Subgroup analyses showed consistent benefits in larger lesions.
conclusionMWA combined with intralesional curettage significantly reduces local recurrence, improves limb function, and accelerates bone healing compared to curettage alone. It represents a safe and effective limb-salvage strategy for locally aggressive benign bone tumors.
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.