ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
CT-guided hybrid cryo-thermal co-ablation versus microwave ablation for stage I renal cell carcinoma: a real-world propensity score-matched comparative study.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive ablation is an established treatment for stage I renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but comparative evidence is limited. This study presents an exploratory feasibility comparison of co-ablation (Co-A), a hybrid cryo-thermal technique combining liquid-nitrogen freezing with ethanol-mediated heating, with microwave ablation (MWA) in perioperative safety, renal function preservation, and short-term oncologic outcomes. Methods: Consecutive patients with clinical RCC who underwent computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous ablation from January 2017 to December 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. Treatment selection reflected routine clinical judgment. This retrospective study was designed as an exploratory analysis. Propensity score matching (1:2) was performed using age, sex, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), tumor size, and RENAL nephrometry score (Radius, Exophytic/endophytic properties, Nearness to collecting system, Anterior/posterior, and Location relative to polar lines). Results: Among 102 screened patients, 78 met eligibility criteria before matching. After matching, 45 patients were included: 15 treated with Co-A and 30 with MWA. All Co-A procedures were completed under local anesthesia, whereas 9 MWA procedures required general anesthesia (P=0.012). Co-A had longer procedure duration (86.2±22.0 Conclusions: This exploratory feasibility study suggests that Co-A and MWA demonstrate similar short-term renal functional outcomes in patients with stage I RCC. Co-A was feasible under local anesthesia and associated with shorter hospitalization, but required longer procedure times and was associated with more minor bleeding events. Differences in hospital stay should be interpreted cautiously due to potential anesthesia-related confounding. Oncologic comparisons require cautious interpretation.
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.