-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jan 2023Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia associated with high morbidity and mortality. AF treatment is guided by a patient-provider risk-benefit... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia associated with high morbidity and mortality. AF treatment is guided by a patient-provider risk-benefit discussion regarding drug versus ablation or combination. Thermal ablation has a high rate of adverse events compared to pulsed field ablation (PFA). In this systematic review, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of PFA.
METHODS
The electronic search for relevant articles in English was completed in PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane library, Scopus, and Embase databases till July 2022. The screening was completed via the use of Covidence software. The risk of bias assessment and data extraction from the included studies was performed, and the narrative synthesis was performed accordingly.
RESULTS
A total of six studies were selected for review and 1897 patients receiving PFA were involved in these studies. Our review was focused on pulmonary vein isolation success, major adverse events, and arrhythmia recurrence. Successful pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) was completed in 100% of cases except in two studies. In one of them, six out of seven patients (86%) in the epicardial cohort had successful PVI. In the MANIFEST-PF survey, the acute PVI success rate was 99.9%. The major complications were rare and included pericardial tamponade, vascular complications requiring surgery, and stroke. The atrial arrhythmia recurrence was higher in the thermal group than in the PFA group (39% vs. 11%).
CONCLUSIONS
The success rate of PVI by PFA is high, and major adverse events are low. PFA is found to decrease the recurrence of atrial arrhythmia compared to thermal ablation. Substantial randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to validate the efficacy and safety of PFA over conventional methods.
PubMed: 36675649
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12020719 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of pain and infertility associated with endometriosis.
SEARCH METHODS
This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group including searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, reference lists for relevant trials, and trial registries from inception to April 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery with any other laparoscopic or robotic intervention, holistic or medical treatment, or diagnostic laparoscopy only.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data with disagreements resolved by a third review author. We collected data for the core outcome set for endometriosis. Primary outcomes included overall pain and live birth. We evaluated the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs. The studies randomised 1563 women with endometriosis. Four RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with laparoscopic ablation or excision and uterine suspension. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation with diagnostic laparoscopy and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation with laparoscopic excision. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with helium thermal coagulator with laparoscopic ablation or excision with electrodiathermy. One RCT compared conservative laparoscopic surgery with laparoscopic colorectal resection of deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. Common limitations in the primary studies included lack of clearly described blinding, failure to fully describe methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and poor reporting of outcome data. Laparoscopic treatment versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on overall pain scores compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only at six months (mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.49; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence) and at 12 months (MD 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.19; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence), where a positive value means pain relief (the higher the score, the more pain relief) and a negative value reflects pain increase (the lower the score, the worse the increase in pain). No studies looked at live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on quality of life compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only: EuroQol-5D index summary at six months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence), 12-item Short Form (SF-12) mental health component (MD 2.30, 95% CI -4.50 to 9.10; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence) and SF-12 physical health component (MD 2.70, 95% CI -2.90 to 8.30; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence). Laparoscopic treatment probably improves viable intrauterine pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (odds ratio (OR) 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.86; 3 RCTs, 528 participants; I = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only on ectopic pregnancy (MD 1.18, 95% CI 0.10 to 13.48; 1 RCT, 100 participants; low quality evidence) and miscarriage (MD 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.54; 2 RCTs, 112 participants; low quality evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse events. No conversions to laparotomy were reported in both groups (1 RCT, 341 participants). Laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection on adverse events (more specifically vascular injury) compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32; 1 RCT, 141 participants; low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage. Laparoscopic ablation versus laparoscopic excision There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in overall pain, measured at 12 months, for laparoscopic ablation compared with laparoscopic excision (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.22 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 103 participants; very low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores at six months, live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events. Helium thermal coagulator versus electrodiathermy We are uncertain whether helium thermal coagulator compared to electrodiathermy improves quality of life using the 30-item Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30) at nine months, when considering the components: pain (MD 6.68, 95% CI -3.07 to 16.43; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), control and powerlessness (MD 4.79, 95% CI -6.92 to 16.50; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), emotional well-being (MD 6.17, 95% CI -3.95 to 16.29; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence) and social support (MD 5.62, 95% CI -6.21 to 17.45; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence). Adverse events were not estimable. No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. No data were reported on live birth. There is moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. No studies were found that looked at live birth for any of the comparisons. Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Denervation; Electrocoagulation; Endometriosis; Female; Goserelin; Helium; Humans; Infertility, Female; Laparoscopy; Pelvic Pain; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uterus
PubMed: 33095458
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011031.pub3 -
JAMA Cardiology Jun 2021Early rhythm control of atrial fibrillation (AF) with either antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) or catheter ablation has been reported to improve cardiovascular outcomes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Early rhythm control of atrial fibrillation (AF) with either antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) or catheter ablation has been reported to improve cardiovascular outcomes compared with usual care; however, the optimal therapeutic modality to achieve early rhythm control is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the safety and efficacy of AF ablation as first-line therapy when compared with AADs in patients with paroxysmal AF.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and various major scientific conference sessions from January 1, 2000, through November 23, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in English that had at least 12 months of follow-up and compared clinical outcomes of ablation vs AADs as first-line therapy in adults with AF. The quality of individual studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Six RCTs met inclusion criteria, including 1212 patients.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators independently extracted data. Reporting was performed in compliance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) guidelines. Analysis was performed using a random-effects model with the Mantel-Haenszel method, and results are presented as 95% CIs.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Main outcomes were safety and efficacy of AF ablation as first-line therapy when compared with AADs. Trials were evaluated as having low risk of selection and attrition biases, high risk of performance bias, and with unclear risk for detection biases due to unblinding and open-label designs.
RESULTS
A total of 6 RCTs involving 1212 patients with AF were included (609 were randomized to AF ablation and 603 to drug therapy; mean [SD] age, 56 [11] years). Compared with AADs, catheter ablation use was associated with reductions in recurrent atrial arrhythmia (32.3% vs 53%; risk ratio [RR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74; P < .001; I2 = 40%), with a number needed to treat with ablation to prevent 1 arrhythmia of 5. Use of ablation was also associated with reduced symptomatic atrial arrhythmia (11.8% vs 26.4%; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.72; P = .001; I2 = 54%) and hospitalization (5.6% vs 18.7%; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19-0.53; P < .001) with no significant difference in serious adverse events between the groups (4.2% vs 2.8%; RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.81-2.85; P = .19).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials including first-line therapy of patients with paroxysmal AF, catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drugs was associated with reductions in recurrence of atrial arrhythmias and hospitalizations, with no difference in major adverse events.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Catheter Ablation; Hospitalization; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33909022
DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.0852 -
JAMA Otolaryngology-- Head & Neck... Apr 2022Papillary microcarcinomas of the thyroid (mPTCs) account for an increasing proportion of thyroid cancers in past decades. The use of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Papillary microcarcinomas of the thyroid (mPTCs) account for an increasing proportion of thyroid cancers in past decades. The use of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been investigated as an alternative to surgery. The effectiveness and safety of RFA has yet to be determined.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of RFA for low-risk mPTC.
DATA SOURCES
Embase, MEDLINE via Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the top 100 references of Google Scholar were searched from inception to May 28, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Articles reporting on adult patients with mPTC treated with RFA were included. Studies that involved patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension were excluded. Final article selection was conducted by multiple reviewers based on consensus. The proportion of eligible articles was 1%.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the MOOSE guidelines. Random and fixed-effect models were applied to obtain pooled proportions and 95% CIs.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the complete disappearance rate of mPTC. Secondary outcomes were tumor progression and complications.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were included in this meta-analysis. A total of 1770 patients (1379 women [77.9%]; mean [SD] age, 45.4 [11.4] years; age range, 42.5-66.0 years) with 1822 tumors were treated with RFA; 49 tumors underwent 1 additional RFA session and 1 tumor underwent 2 additional RFA sessions. Mean (SD) follow-up time was 33.0 (11.4) months (range, 6-131 months). The pooled complete disappearance rate at the end of follow-up was 79% (95% CI, 65%-94%). The overall tumor progression rate was 1.5% (n = 26 patients), local residual mPTC in the ablation area was found in 7 tumors (0.4%), new mPTC in the thyroid was found in 15 patients (0.9%), and 4 patients (0.2%) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up. No distant metastases were detected. Three major complications occurred (2 voice changes lasting >2 months and 1 cardiac arrhythmia). Minor complications were described in 45 patients.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that RFA is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk mPTCs. Radiofrequency ablation could be envisioned as step-up treatment after local tumor growth under active surveillance for an mPTC or initial treatment in patients with mPTCs with anxiety about active surveillance.
Topics: Carcinoma, Papillary; Female; Humans; Male; Radiofrequency Ablation; Thyroid Neoplasms
PubMed: 35142816
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2021.4381 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2016To assess the effect of treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) on obstetric outcomes and to correlate this with cone depth and comparison group used. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effect of treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) on obstetric outcomes and to correlate this with cone depth and comparison group used.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
CENTRAL, Medline, Embase from 1948 to April 2016 were searched for studies assessing obstetric outcomes in women with or without previous local cervical treatment.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Independent reviewers extracted the data and performed quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa criteria. Studies were classified according to method and obstetric endpoint. Pooled risk ratios were calculated with a random effect model and inverse variance. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with I(2) statistics.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Obstetric outcomes comprised preterm birth (including spontaneous and threatened), premature rupture of the membranes, chorioamnionitis, mode of delivery, length of labour, induction of delivery, oxytocin use, haemorrhage, analgesia, cervical cerclage, and cervical stenosis. Neonatal outcomes comprised low birth weight, admission to neonatal intensive care, stillbirth, APGAR scores, and perinatal mortality.
RESULTS
71 studies were included (6 338 982 participants: 65 082 treated/6 292 563 untreated). Treatment significantly increased the risk of overall (<37 weeks; 10.7% v 5.4%; relative risk 1.78, 95% confidence interval 1.60 to 1.98), severe (<32-34 weeks; 3.5% v 1.4%; 2.40, 1.92 to 2.99), and extreme (<28-30 weeks; 1.0% v 0.3%; 2.54, 1.77 to 3.63) preterm birth. Techniques removing or ablating more tissue were associated with worse outcomes. Relative risks for delivery at <37 weeks were 2.70 (2.14 to 3.40) for cold knife conisation, 2.11 (1.26 to 3.54) for laser conisation, 2.02 (1.60 to 2.55) for excision not otherwise specified, 1.56 (1.36 to 1.79) for large loop excision of the transformation zone, and 1.46 (1.27 to 1.66) for ablation not otherwise specified. Compared with no treatment, the risk of preterm birth was higher in women who had undergone more than one treatment (13.2% v 4.1%; 3.78, 2.65 to 5.39) and with increasing cone depth (≤10-12 mm; 7.1% v 3.4%; 1.54, 1.09 to 2.18; ≥10-12 mm: 9.8% v 3.4%, 1.93, 1.62 to 2.31; ≥15-17 mm: 10.1% v 3.4%; 2.77, 1.95 to 3.93; ≥20 mm: 10.2% v 3.4%; 4.91, 2.06 to 11.68). The choice of comparison group affected the magnitude of effect. This was higher for external comparators, followed by internal comparators, and ultimately women with disease who did not undergo treatment. In women with untreated CIN and in pregnancies before treatment, the risk of preterm birth was higher than the risk in the general population (5.9% v 5.6%; 1.24, 1.14 to 1.35). Spontaneous preterm birth, premature rupture of the membranes, chorioamnionitis, low birth weight, admission to neonatal intensive care, and perinatal mortality were also significantly increased after treatment. :
CONCLUSIONS
Women with CIN have a higher baseline risk for prematurity. Excisional and ablative treatment further increases that risk. The frequency and severity of adverse sequelae increases with increasing cone depth and is higher for excision than for ablation.
Topics: Adult; Cervix Uteri; Conization; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Obstetric Labor, Premature; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Neoplastic; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Risk Factors; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 27469988
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i3633 -
International Journal of Hyperthermia :... 2021Histotripsy is the first noninvasive, non-ionizing, and non-thermal ablation technology guided by real-time imaging. Using focused ultrasound delivered from outside the...
Histotripsy is the first noninvasive, non-ionizing, and non-thermal ablation technology guided by real-time imaging. Using focused ultrasound delivered from outside the body, histotripsy mechanically destroys tissue through cavitation, rendering the target into acellular debris. The material in the histotripsy ablation zone is absorbed by the body within 1-2 months, leaving a minimal remnant scar. Histotripsy has also been shown to stimulate an immune response and induce abscopal effects in animal models, which may have positive implications for future cancer treatment. Histotripsy has been investigated for a wide range of applications in preclinical studies, including the treatment of cancer, neurological diseases, and cardiovascular diseases. Three human clinical trials have been undertaken using histotripsy for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, liver cancer, and calcified valve stenosis. This review provides a comprehensive overview of histotripsy covering the origin, mechanism, bioeffects, parameters, instruments, and the latest results on preclinical and human studies.
Topics: Ablation Techniques; Animals; High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation; Humans; Models, Animal; Neoplasms; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 33827375
DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2021.1905189 -
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia Jul 2022Catheter ablation is a well-established therapy for rhythm control in patients who are refractory or intolerant to anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD). Less is known about the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Catheter ablation is a well-established therapy for rhythm control in patients who are refractory or intolerant to anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD). Less is known about the efficacy of catheter ablation compared with AAD as a first-line strategy for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF).
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of catheter ablation vs. AAD in patients naïve to prior rhythm control therapies.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared catheter ablation to AAD for initial rhythm control in symptomatic AF and reported the outcomes of (1) recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs); (2) symptomatic AF; (3) hospitalizations; and (4) symptomatic bradycardia. Heterogeneity was examined with I2statistics. P values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
We included five trials with 994 patients, of whom 502 (50.5%) underwent catheter ablation. Mean follow-up ranged from one to five years. Recurrences of AT (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.25-0.52; p<0.001) and symptomatic AF (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.18-0.57; p<0.001), and hospitalizations (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.15-0.42; p<0.001) were significantly less frequent in patients treated with catheter ablation compared with AAD. Symptomatic bradycardia was not significantly different between groups (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.65; p=0.28). Significant pericardial effusions or tamponade occurred in eight of 464 (1.7%) patients in the catheter ablation group.
CONCLUSION
These findings suggest that catheter ablation has superior efficacy to AAD as an initial rhythm control strategy in patients with symptomatic AF.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Catheter Ablation; Heart Atria; Humans; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35830118
DOI: 10.36660/abc.20210477 -
Pain Physician Mar 2017Patients suffering from osteoarthritis of the knee and patients post total knee arthroplasty often develop refractory, disabling chronic knee pain. Radiofrequency... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patients suffering from osteoarthritis of the knee and patients post total knee arthroplasty often develop refractory, disabling chronic knee pain. Radiofrequency ablation, including conventional, pulsed, and cooled, has recently become more accepted as an interventional technique to manage chronic knee pain in patients who have failed conservative treatment or who are not suitable candidates for surgical treatment.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aimed to analyze published studies on radiofrequency ablation to provide an overview of the current knowledge regarding variations in procedures, nerve targets, adverse events, and temporal extent of clinical benefit.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review of published studies investigating conventional, pulsed, or cooled radiofrequency ablation in the setting of chronic knee pain.
METHODS
Medline, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were reviewed for studies on radiofrequency ablation for patients with chronic knee pain through July 29, 2016. From the studies, the procedural details, outcomes after treatment, follow-up points, and complications were compiled and analyzed in this literature review. Included studies were analyzed for clinical relevance and strength of evidence was graded using either the NHLBI Quality assessment of controlled intervention studies or the NHLBI quality assessment for before-after (pre-post) studies with no control group.
RESULTS
Seventeen total publications were identified in the search, including articles investigating conventional, pulsed, or cooled radiofrequency ablation. These studies primarily targeted either the genicular nerves or used an intraarticular approach. Of the studies, 5 were small-sized randomized controlled trials, although one involved diathermy radiofrequency ablation. There were 8 retrospective or prospective case series and 4 case reports. Utilizing the strength of evidence grading, there is a low level of certainty to suggest a superior benefit between targeting the genicular nerve, an intraarticular approach, or targeting the larger nerves such as femoral and tibial nerves. Utilizing the strength of evidence grading, there is a low level of certainty in supporting the superiority of any specific RFA procedure modality. The majority of the studies report positive patient outcomes, but the inconsistent procedural methodology, inconsistent patient assessment measures, and small study sizes limit the applicability of any specific study to clinical practice.
LIMITATIONS
While the wide search strategy included a variety of articles, broad conclusions and pooled data could not be obtained based on the studies analyzed.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the studies showed promising results for the treatment of severe chronic knee pain by radiofrequency ablation at up to one year with minimal complications. Numerous studies, however, yielded concerns about procedural protocols, study quality, and patient follow-up. Radiofrequency ablation can offer substantial clinical and functional benefit to patients with chronic knee pain due to osteoarthritis or post total knee arthroplasty.Key words: Radiofrequency ablation, knee osteoarthritis, knee pain, genicular nerve, total knee arthroplasty (TKA), cooled radiofrequency ablation, pulsed radiofrequency ablation.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Cold Temperature; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Humans; Knee Joint; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28339430
DOI: No ID Found -
Prostate International Dec 2021We sought to compare oncologic and functional outcomes between thermal and nonthermal energy partial gland ablation (PGA) modalities. We conducted comprehensive,... (Review)
Review
We sought to compare oncologic and functional outcomes between thermal and nonthermal energy partial gland ablation (PGA) modalities. We conducted comprehensive, structured literature searches, and 39 papers, abstracts, and presentations met the inclusion criteria of pre-PGA magnetic resonance imaging, oncologic outcomes of at least 6 months, and systematic biopsies after PGA. Twenty-six studies used thermal ablation: high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryotherapy, focal laser ablation, or radiofrequency ablation. In-field recurrence rates ranged from 0 to 36% for HIFU, 6 to 24% for cryotherapy, 4 to 50% for focal laser ablation, and 20 to 25% for radiofrequency ablation. Twelve studies used nonthermal technologies of focal brachytherapy, vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy, or irreversible electroporation. Focal brachytherapy had the lowest reported failure rate of 8%, vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy had >30% positive in-field biopsies, and irreversible electroporation had in-field recurrence rates of 12-35%. PGA was well tolerated, and nearly all patients returned to baseline urinary function 12 months later. Most modalities caused transient decreases in erectile function. Persistent erectile dysfunction was highest in patients who underwent HIFU. Although oncologic outcomes vary between treatment modalities, systematic review of existing data demonstrates that PGA is a safe treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer.
PubMed: 35059352
DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2021.04.001 -
Fertility and Sterility Dec 2022To investigate whether cystectomy or ablation for endometrioma has less impact on ovarian reserve as evaluated by antral follicle count (AFC) and antimüllerian hormone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether cystectomy or ablation for endometrioma has less impact on ovarian reserve as evaluated by antral follicle count (AFC) and antimüllerian hormone (AMH) levels.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S)
Patients with endometriomas undergoing cystectomy or ablation.
INTERVENTION(S)
All prospective studies comparing cystectomy with ablation for endometrioma in the PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science until April 3, 2022 were retrieved and reviewed. Medical treatment used as adjuvant therapy for the surgery was excluded. Two authors assessed eligibility and risk of bias independently. The statistical data were pooled using the Review Manager software.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
The changes of AMH levels and AFC values in cystectomy group and ablation group, including intergroup comparisons and intragroup comparisons.
RESULT(S)
Four randomized clinical trials and 2 prospective cohort studies were eligible for the meta-analysis, with a total of 294 patients. In the intergroup comparisons, preoperative AFC values were similar with low heterogeneity, but postoperative AFC values were significantly lower in cystectomy than ablation (mean differences [MD], -1.33; 95% credible interval, -2.15 to -0.51; I = 57%). In the intragroup comparisons of AFC values, sensitivity analyses showed a significant decrease in cystectomy (MD, -1.93; 95% credible interval, -2.40 to -1.45; I = 0%) at 6-month follow-up, compared with no reduction in ablation. The intragroup comparisons of AMH levels supported negative effects on ovarian reserve of both cystectomy (MD, -1.26; 95% credible interval, -1.64 to -0.88; I = 45%) and ablation (MD, -0.70; 95% credible interval, -1.07 to -0.32; I = 0%).
CONCLUSION(S)
Both ablation and cystectomy have significantly detrimental effects on ovarian reserve as evaluated by AMH, but the ablation causes relatively less damage to ovarian reserve as appraised by AFC.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020152823;PROSPERO (york.ac.uk).
Topics: Female; Humans; Ovarian Reserve; Prospective Studies; Laparoscopy; Endometriosis; Anti-Mullerian Hormone
PubMed: 36334993
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.08.860