-
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Jun 2022The optimal treatment of aneurysmal bone cysts (ABC) remains controversial. Surgery has long been considered as the treatment that yields the best outcomes. Some authors... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The optimal treatment of aneurysmal bone cysts (ABC) remains controversial. Surgery has long been considered as the treatment that yields the best outcomes. Some authors now prefer using less invasive options as the primary treatment. The primary objective of this systematic literature review was to determine if treatments that are less invasive than surgery are also effective in curing the ABC. The secondary objective was to determine the respective role of each treatment in the therapeutic arsenal.
HYPOTHESIS
Less invasive treatments can replace surgery as the base treatment for ABC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A PubMed® search was carried out for this review. The inclusion criteria were ABC treatment without cyst removal, case series, clinical case reports, reviews, publication in French or English. Excluded were articles that described the results of surgical treatment only, cranial or maxillofacial cysts, secondary ABC, duplicates, no abstract available. Based on the first six items of the "MINOR criteria", we selected 42 studies. For each selected study, we analyzed the number of cases, clinical response to treatment, radiological healing, recurrence or failure rate, complications and side effects of the treatment.
RESULTS
This review found that less invasive treatments generate results that are at least as good as surgery, often with fewer complications. Thus, in certain cases, these treatments can be recommended as first-line therapy. This category includes selective arterial embolization, sclerotherapy (alcohol, polidocanol) and injection of demineralized bone matrix.
DISCUSSION
Selective arterial embolization yields good results. While this is a difficult, operator-dependent technique that is not suitable for all ABCs (no identifiable feeding vessel), we recommend it as the primary treatment for spinal ABCs. For ABCs in other locations, sclerotherapy can be used as the primary treatment. However, this treatment becomes inconvenient if the number of injections is too high. Radiation therapy is not a first-line treatment because of its side effects. Bisphosphonates and denosumab can be used when the other treatments are contraindicated.
Topics: Bone Cysts, Aneurysmal; Embolization, Therapeutic; Humans; Radiography; Sclerotherapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35331923
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103272 -
European Archives of... Jul 2024Lymphatic malformations (LMs) are abnormal lymphatic vessels with cystic characteristics, categorized as macrocystic, microcystic, or a combination of both. They... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Lymphatic malformations (LMs) are abnormal lymphatic vessels with cystic characteristics, categorized as macrocystic, microcystic, or a combination of both. They represent the second most common vascular malformations, and their management involves multidisciplinary approaches based on clinical assessments and imaging studies. LMs manifest as a challenge to medical professionals in the head and neck, posing functional and aesthetic concerns. Our systematic review aims to compare the efficacy of sclerotherapy and surgery for LMs, identifying optimal treatment modalities for each scenario.
METHODS
We searched four electronic databases for related studies. Data were extracted from the included studies. We calculated the pooled rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The I test was used to detect heterogeneity. The inclusion of the studies required the following prerequisites: 1- Studies focusing on any lymphatic malformations in the head and neck, whether microcystic, macrocystic, or a mix of both; 2- Studies performed on more than ten patients; 3- All interventions used as surgery, sclerotherapy, or both.
RESULTS
We included 58 studies in our systematic review, of which 45 were eligible for the meta-analysis. For macrocystic LMs, sodium tetradecyl sulfate (STS) mixed with ethanol and excision achieved the highest complete response rates at (92.9%) and (92.5%), respectively. Surgical excision showed the lowest poor response rate. Polidocanol microfoam had the highest poor response rate (11.1%). In microcystic LMs, combining sclerotherapy with excision showed the highest complete response rate (70.3%) and the lowest poor response rate (1.3%). Picibanil had the lowest complete response rate (9.1%) and the highest rate of poor response (61.4%). In mixed LMs, surgical excision had the highest complete response rate (70.3%).
CONCLUSION
Both surgical excision and STS combined with ethanol are highly effective for treating macrocystic LMs, achieving similar complete response rates. The combination of sclerotherapy and surgical excision demonstrated the best outcomes in microcystic LMs. Surgical excision demonstrates superior efficacy over sclerotherapy for mixed LMs. These findings suggest that excision is generally more effective in achieving complete and excellent responses across all LM subtypes. Further high-quality studies are necessary to standardize and optimize treatment protocols.
PubMed: 38951201
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-024-08793-9 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jun 2020Cyanoacrylate alone or in combination with other interventions, can be used to achieve variable rates of success in preventing rebleeding. Our study aims to assess the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cyanoacrylate alone or in combination with other interventions, can be used to achieve variable rates of success in preventing rebleeding. Our study aims to assess the pooled risk of gastric and esophageal varices rebleeding after an initial treatment with cyanoacrylate alone and/or in combination with other treatments, by a systematic review of the literature and pooled analysis.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane library were searched for studies that reported the risk of rebleeding during the follow-up period after treatment of gastric or esophageal varices with either cyanoacrylate alone or in combination with other treatments. Standard error, upper and lower confidence intervals at 95% confidence interval for the risk were obtained using STATA Version 15 which was also used to generate forest plots for pooled analysis. The random or fixed effect model was applied depending on the heterogeneity (I).
RESULTS
A total of 39 studies were found to report treatment of either gastric or esophageal varices with either cyanoacrylate alone or in combination with other treatments. When gastric varices are treated with cyanoacrylate alone, the risk of rebleeding during the follow-up period is 0.15(Confidence Interval: 0.11-0.18). When combined with lipiodol; polidocanol or sclerotherapy the rebleeding risks are 0.13 (CI:0.03-0.22), 0.10(CI:0.02-0.19), and 0.10(CI:0.05-0.18), respectively. When combined with percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization; percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization; endoscopic ultrasound guided coils; or with ethanolamine, the rebleeding risk are 0.10(CI:0.03-0.17), 0.10(CI:0.03-0.17), 0.07(CI:0.03-0.11) and 0.08(CI:0.02-0.14), respectively. When esophageal varices are treated with cyanoacrylate alone, the risk of rebleeding is 0.29(CI:0.11-0.47). When combined with percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization; sclerotherapy; or band ligation, the risks of rebleeding are 0.16(CI:0.10-0.22), 0.12(CI:0.04-0.20) and 0.10(CI:0.04-0.24), respectively. When combined with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt; or ethanolamine, the risks of rebleeding are 0.06(CI: - 0.01-0.12) and 0.02 (CI: - 0.02-0.05), respectively.
CONCLUSION
In treating both gastric and esophageal varices, cyanoacrylate produces better results in terms of lower risk of rebleeding when combined with other treatments than when used alone. The combination of cyanoacrylate with ethanolamine or with endoscopic ultrasound guided coils produces the lowest risk of rebleeding in esophageal and gastric varices, respectively. We call upon randomized trials to test these hypotheses.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Chemoprevention; Cyanoacrylates; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Female; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32517718
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-020-01333-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are commonly used to treat lateral elbow pain (also known as tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are commonly used to treat lateral elbow pain (also known as tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis or epicondylalgia). Based on animal models and observational studies, these injections may modulate tendon injury healing, but randomised controlled trials have reported inconsistent results regarding benefit for people with lateral elbow pain.
OBJECTIVES
To review current evidence on the benefit and safety of autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection for treatment of people with lateral elbow pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for published trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal for ongoing trials, on 18 September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing autologous whole blood or PRP injection therapy to another therapy (placebo or active treatment, including non-pharmacological therapies, and comparison between PRP and autologous blood) for lateral elbow pain. The primary comparison was PRP versus placebo. Major outcomes were pain relief (≥ 30% or ≥ 50%), mean pain, mean function, treatment success, quality of life, withdrawal due to adverse events, and adverse events; the primary time point was three months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 studies with 2337 participants; 56% of participants were female, mean age varied between 36 and 53 years, and mean duration of symptoms ranged from 1 to 22 months. Seven trials had three intervention arms. Ten trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to placebo injection (primary comparison). Fifteen trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to glucocorticoid injection. Four studies compared autologous blood to PRP. Two trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection plus tennis elbow strap and exercise versus tennis elbow strap and exercise alone. Two trials compared PRP injection to surgery, and one trial compared PRP injection and dry needling to dry needling alone. Other comparisons include autologous blood versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy; PRP versus arthroscopic surgery; PRP versus laser; and autologous blood versus polidocanol. Most studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection biases, mainly due to inadequate allocation concealment and lack of participant blinding. We found moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) to show that autologous blood or PRP injection probably does not provide clinically significant improvement in pain or function compared with placebo injection at three months. Further, low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggests that PRP may not increase risk for adverse events. We are uncertain whether autologous blood or PRP injection improves treatment success (downgraded for bias, imprecision, and indirectness) or withdrawals due to adverse events (downgraded for bias and twice for imprecision). No studies measured health-related quality of life, and no studies reported pain relief (> 30% or 50%) at three months. At three months, mean pain was 3.7 points (0 to 10; 0 is best) with placebo and 0.16 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 better to 0.29 worse; 8 studies, 523 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute improvement of 1.6% better (6% better to 3% worse). At three months, mean function was 27.5 points (0 to 100; 0 is best) with placebo and 1.86 points better (95% CI 4.9 better to 1.25 worse; 8 studies, 502 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute benefit of 1.9% (5% better to 1% worse), and treatment success was 121 out of 185 (65%) with placebo versus 125 out of 187 (67%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 4 studies, 372 participants), for absolute improvement of 0% (11.1% lower to 12.4% higher). Regarding harm, we found very low-certainty evidence to suggest that we are uncertain whether withdrawal rates due to adverse events differed. Low-certainty evidence suggests that autologous blood or PRP injection may not increase adverse events compared with placebo injection. Withdrawal due to adverse events occurred in 3 out of 39 (8%) participants treated with placebo versus 1 out of 41 (2%) treated with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.92; 1 study), for an absolute difference of 5.2% fewer (7.5% fewer to 14.8% more). Adverse event rates were 35 out of 208 (17%) with placebo versus 41 out of 217 (19%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.72; 5 studies; 425 participants), for an absolute difference of 2.4% more (4% fewer to 12% more). At six and twelve months, no clinically important benefit for mean pain or function was observed with autologous blood or PRP injection compared with placebo injection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Data in this review do not support the use of autologous blood or PRP injection for treatment of lateral elbow pain. These injections probably provide little or no clinically important benefit for pain or function (moderate-certainty evidence), and it is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence) whether they improve treatment success and pain relief > 50%, or increase withdrawal due to adverse events. Although risk for harm may not be increased compared with placebo injection (low-certainty evidence), injection therapies cause pain and carry a small risk of infection. With no evidence of benefit, the costs and risks are not justified.
Topics: Arthroscopy; Elbow; Female; Humans; Infant; Pain Measurement; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Shoulder Pain
PubMed: 34590307
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010951.pub2 -
Vascular Feb 2024Long-pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser can damage vessels with higher diameters and penetrate to a deeper level than other laser therapies. We aim to analyze outcomes of the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Long-pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser can damage vessels with higher diameters and penetrate to a deeper level than other laser therapies. We aim to analyze outcomes of the treatment of leg veins with long-pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser regarding intervention protocol, technical success, clinical success, and side effects.
METHODS
A research of the published literature was conducted, using PubMed and Embase databases, in April 2022. The key words used were telangiectasia, reticular veins, neodymium YAG laser, clearance, satisfaction, and treatment. PRISMA guidelines were followed.
RESULTS
We included twenty-six articles, twenty-three prospective and three retrospective studies, with a total of 1991 patients. The articles were organized in different sections according to the control group. The four outcomes were analyzed in each section. These studies showed that the long-pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser is a safe and very good option for the treatment of leg veins measuring up to 3 mm in diameter. Studies comparing long-pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser therapy and sclerotherapy showed similar clearance rates with no significant differences. However, sclerotherapy seemed to be less painful and to have faster clinical improvements. In two articles, Nd:YAG laser had better outcomes in the treatment of smaller vessels with less than 1 mm in diameter, than sclerotherapy alone. Treatment with polidocanol microfoam and Nd:YAG laser had better clearance rates than Nd:YAG laser alone in three studies. In the comparison of 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser therapy with other lasers and light sources, the studies had contradictory results.
CONCLUSION
Long-pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser is a valid therapeutic option for leg telangiectasia and reticular veins with great aesthetic outcomes and minor side effects. Nd:YAG laser therapy could be combined with sclerotherapy or other laser therapies or IPL in order to achieve better results. Serious side effects are rare, but the procedure is almost always accompanied by moderate tolerable pain.
PubMed: 38413049
DOI: 10.1177/17085381241236587 -
Eplasty 2017Despite improved recognition of risk factors, plastic surgeons commonly encounter seromas postoperatively and must decide upon management. Current recommendations for...
Despite improved recognition of risk factors, plastic surgeons commonly encounter seromas postoperatively and must decide upon management. Current recommendations for minimally invasive, chemical management originate from the literature on management of pneumothorax and pleural effusions. A handful of published reports have suggested the efficacy of sclerotherapy in seroma management. The aim of this study was to assess the literature on the use of sclerosants to treat subcutaneous fluid collections. A systematic review of the literature was performed on the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases for primary research articles on sclerotherapy for seroma treatment between January 1975 and January 2017. Exclusion criteria were surgical treatment, sclerotherapy for seroma prevention, hematoma, or absence of detailed documentation. Data related to seroma location, sclerosant, and resolutions were extracted. The literature search yielded 7 relevant articles of level IV evidence and 12 case reports, with a total of 84 patients treated with sclerotherapy for persistent seromas. Slerosant included talc, tetracycline antibiotics, ethanol, polidocanol, erythromycin, OK-432, fibrin glue, and povidone-iodine. All agents achieved high rates of success. Repeat aspirations and instillations were easily performed when required. Complications, while uncommon, included pain, tightness or discomfort of the treated area, and infection. Sclerotherapy appears to be effective and safe for recurrent seromas. While a variety of sclerosing agents may be applied successfully, talc and tetracyclines remain popular choices. Because of the small scale and retrospective nature of the published literature, larger, randomized, comparative studies are necessary to assess and optimize this treatment approach.
PubMed: 28890747
DOI: No ID Found -
British Medical Bulletin Mar 2015Several pharmacological interventions have been proposed for the management of Achilles tendinopathy, with no agreement on which is the overall best option available.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Several pharmacological interventions have been proposed for the management of Achilles tendinopathy, with no agreement on which is the overall best option available. This systematic review investigates the efficacy and safety of different local pharmacological treatments for Achilles tendinopathy.
SOURCES OF DATA
We included only randomized controlled studies (RCTs) focusing on clinical and functional outcomes of therapies consisting in injection of a substance or local application. Assessment of the methodological quality was performed using a modified version of the Coleman methodology score (CMS) to determine possible risks of bias.
AREAS OF AGREEMENT
Thirteen RCTs were included with a total of 528 studied patients. Eleven studies reported the outcomes of injection therapies. Two studies examined the outcomes of patients who applied glyceryl trinitrate patch. The mean modified CMS was 70.6 out of 90.
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
There was no significant evidence of remarkable benefits provided by any of the therapies studied.
GROWING POINTS
There is not univocal evidence to advise any particular pharmacological treatment as the best advisable non-operative option for Achilles tendinopathy as equivalent alternative to the most commonly used eccentric loading rehabilitation program. However, potential was shown by the combination of different substances administered with physical therapy.
RESEARCH
There is a need for more long-term investigations, studying large enough cohort with standardized scores and evaluations shared by all the investigations to confirm the healing potential, and provide a stronger statistical comparison of the available treatments.
Topics: Achilles Tendon; Blood Transfusion, Autologous; Humans; Pain; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Polidocanol; Polyethylene Glycols; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sclerosing Solutions; Tendinopathy; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom; Wound Healing
PubMed: 25583629
DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldu040 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2006Injection sclerotherapy is widely used for superficial varicose veins. The treatment aims to obliterate the lumen of varicose veins or thread veins. There is limited... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Injection sclerotherapy is widely used for superficial varicose veins. The treatment aims to obliterate the lumen of varicose veins or thread veins. There is limited evidence regarding its efficacy.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether sclerotherapy is effective in improving symptoms and cosmetic appearance and has an acceptable complication rate; to define rates of symptomatic or cosmetic varicose vein recurrence following sclerotherapy.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group trials register (April 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2006), MEDLINE and EMBASE (both inception to April 2006) and reference lists of articles. Manufacturers of sclerosants were contacted for additional trial information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of injection sclerotherapy versus graduated compression stockings (GCS) or 'observation', or comparing different sclerosants, doses, formulations and post-compression bandaging techniques on people with symptomatic and/or cosmetic varicose veins or thread veins were considered for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted by authors and Review Group Co-ordinators independently.
MAIN RESULTS
Seventeen studies were included. One study comparing sclerotherapy to GCS in pregnancy found that sclerotherapy improved symptoms and cosmetic appearance. Three studies comparing sodium tetradecyl sulphate (STD) to alternative sclerosants found no significant differences in outcome or complication rates; another study found that sclerotherapy with STD led to improved cosmetic appearance compared with polidocanol, although there was no difference in symptoms. Sclerosant plus local anaesthetic reduced the pain from injection (one study) but had no other effects. Two studies compared foam- to conventional sclerotherapy; one found no difference in failure rate or recurrent varicose veins; a second showed short-term benefit from foam in terms of elimination of venous reflux. The recanalisation rate was no different between the two treatments. One study comparing Molefoam and Sorbo pad pressure dressings found no difference in erythema or successful sclerosis. The degree and duration of elastic compression had no significant effect on varicose vein recurrence rates, cosmetic appearance or symptomatic improvement.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from RCTs suggests that the choice of sclerosant, dose, formulation (foam versus liquid), local pressure dressing, degree and length of compression have no significant effect on the efficacy of sclerotherapy for varicose veins. The evidence supports the current place of sclerotherapy in modern clinical practice, which is usually limited to treatment of recurrent varicose veins following surgery and thread veins. Surgery versus sclerotherapy is the subject of a further Cochrane Review.
Topics: Bandages; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sclerosing Solutions; Sclerotherapy; Varicose Veins
PubMed: 17054141
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001732.pub2 -
Bone & Joint Open Feb 2021Aneurysmal bone cysts (ABCs) are locally aggressive lesions typically found in the long bones of children and adolescents. A variety of management strategies have been...
AIMS
Aneurysmal bone cysts (ABCs) are locally aggressive lesions typically found in the long bones of children and adolescents. A variety of management strategies have been reported to be effective in the treatment of these lesions. The purpose of this review was to assess the effectiveness of current strategies for the management of primary ABCs of the long bones.
METHODS
A systematic review of the published literature was performed to identify all articles relating to the management of primary ABCs. Studies required a minimum 12-month follow-up and case series reporting on under ten participants were not included.
RESULTS
A total of 28 articles meeting the eligibility criteria were included in this review, and all but one were retrospective in design. Due to heterogeneity in study design, treatment, and outcome reporting, data synthesis and group comparison was not possible. The most common treatment option reported on was surgical curettage with or without a form of adjuvant therapy, followed by injection-based therapies. Of the 594 patients treated with curettage across 17 studies, 86 (14.4%) failed to heal or experienced a recurrence. Similar outcomes were reported for 57 (14.70%) of the 387 patients treated with injection therapy across 12 studies. Only one study directly compared curettage with injection therapy (polidocanol), randomizing 94 patients into both treatment groups. This study was at risk of bias and provided low-quality evidence of a lack of difference between the two interventions, reporting success rates of 93.3% and 84.8% for injection and surgical treatment groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION
While both surgery and sclerotherapy are widely implemented for treatment of ABCs, there is currently no good quality evidence to support the use of one option over the other. There is a need for prospective multicentre randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions for the treatment of ABCs. Cite this article: 2021;2(2):125-133.
PubMed: 33622046
DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.22.BJO-2020-0168 -
Medicine May 2024Benign thyroid nodules (BTNs) represent a prevalent clinical challenge globally, with various ultrasound-guided ablation techniques developed for their management.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Benign thyroid nodules (BTNs) represent a prevalent clinical challenge globally, with various ultrasound-guided ablation techniques developed for their management. Despite the availability of these methods, a comprehensive evaluation to identify the most effective technique remains absent. This study endeavors to bridge this knowledge gap through a network meta-analysis (NMA), aiming to enhance the understanding of the comparative effectiveness of different ultrasound-guided ablation methods in treating BTNs.
METHODS
We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Ovid, SCOPUS, and ProQuest for studies involving 16 ablation methods, control groups, and head-to-head trials. NMA was utilized to evaluate methods based on the percentage change in nodule volume, symptom score, and cosmetic score. This study is registered in INPLASY (registration number 202260061).
RESULTS
Among 35 eligible studies involving 5655 patients, NMA indicated that RFA2 (radiofrequency ablation, 2 sessions) exhibited the best outcomes at 6 months for percentage change in BTN volume (SUCRA value 74.6), closely followed by RFA (SUCRA value 73.7). At 12 months, RFA was identified as the most effective (SUCRA value 81.3). Subgroup analysis showed RFA2 as the most effective for solid nodule volume reduction at 6 months (SUCRA value 75.6), and polidocanol ablation for cystic nodules (SUCRA value 66.5).
CONCLUSION
Various ablation methods are effective in treating BTNs, with RFA showing notable advantages. RFA with 2 sessions is particularly optimal for solid BTNs, while polidocanol ablation stands out for cystic nodules.
Topics: Humans; Thyroid Nodule; Network Meta-Analysis; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Radiofrequency Ablation; Treatment Outcome; Ablation Techniques
PubMed: 38701262
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038014