ABSTRACT
Purpose To investigate the clinical efficacy of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and microwave ablation in the treatment of primary hepatic carcinoma.Materials and Methods Ninety-two patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma (116 lesions) were randomly divided into 46 cases of radiofrequency ablation group and 46 cases of microwave ablation group, which were treated with radiofrequency ablation and microwave ablation, respectively, the ablation points and ablation time, complete ablation rate, local tumor progression rate, postoperative complications, hospitalization time, hospitalization expenses, recurrence rate and relapse-free survival rate 1 year, 2 years and 3 years after surgery were compared and analyzed.Results There was no significant difference between the two groups in average ablation points (P>0.05), and the ablation time of microwave ablation group was significantly shorter than that of radiofrequency ablation group (P0.05). The difference of complete ablation rate and local tumor progression rate between the two groups of tumor 0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of fever, pain in liver area and average length of hospitalization between the two groups (P>0.05). The average hospitalization cost of microwave ablation group was significantly lower than that of radiofrequency ablation group (P0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the overall relapse-free survival rate and relapse-free survival rate among tumors with different size of the two groups (P>0.05).Conclusion Using microwave ablation for the treatment of primary hepatocellular carcinoma shows a clinical efficacy and safety as good as radiofrequency ablation. Radiofrequency ablation may have better therapeutic effect for smaller tumors, but microwave ablation may have some advantages for medium or large tumors and tumors located near the vessels.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare the effects of embolic agents with different particle sizes on interventional treatment of uterine fibroids [UFs]
Methods: One-hundred and thirty patients with UFs were divided into a treatment group and a control group [n=65] by random draw. All patients were treated by uterine artery embolization, with the treatment group using 200 Micro m polyvinyl alcohol [PVA] particles and the control group using 500 Micro m PVA particles
Results: The success rate of embolization was 100%. After intervention, the treatment group was significantly less prone to complications such as lower abdominal pain, fever, nausea, vomiting and bleeding than the control group [P<0.05]. The follicle-stimulating hormone levels of both groups were similar before and after intervention, and there were also no significant inter-group differences. The uterine and UF volumes of both groups significantly decreased six months after intervention [P<0.05], and those of the treatment group were significantly lower [P<0.05]. The two groups had similar physical function, role-physical, bodily pain and general health scores before intervention, but the treatment group scored significantly higher than the control group did six months after intervention [P<0.05]
Conclusion: Interventional embolization can well treat UFs, without apparently affecting ovarian functions. Small-sized PVA particles can improve the quality of life by shrinking the uterus and UFs as well as by reducing the risks of complications