ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND@#With the wide application of computed tomography (CT) in the screening of early lung cancer, more and more ground glass nodules (GGNs) have been found. Early intervention is helpful to improve the survival rate of lung cancer patients. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is an alternative option to manage primary or metastatic lung malignancies. The purpose of this study is to review the safety and clinical efficacy for lung GGN treated by RFA.@*METHODS@#From June 2016 to March 2021, 24 patients with a total of 28 lung GGNs in our hospital underwent 28 sessions of RFA. There were 13 males and 11 females with an average age of (69.4±11.1) years. The size of GGN receiving RFA was (1.30±0.56) cm; The ablation range was (2.50±0.63) cm and ablation time was (15.00±8.68) min.@*RESULTS@#The procedure of all RFAs went smoothly, no perioperative deaths occurred and no serious complications during the operation. The median follow-up was 25 months. One case died of myocardial infarction 2 months after operation. All 28 GGNs showed no evidence of local progression and the local control rate was 100.0%. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the 1-year and 2-year overall survival rates were 95.8% and 95.8%; the tumor specific survival rates were 100.0% and 100.0%, respectively.@*CONCLUSIONS@#RFA is a safe, effective and minimally invasive technique for the treatment of lung GGNs.
Subject(s)
Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Lung , Lung Neoplasms/surgery , Radiofrequency Ablation/adverse effects , Tomography, X-Ray ComputedABSTRACT
Introducción: Actualmente se prefieren procedimientos mínimamente invasivos como las técnicas endovasculares para el tratamiento de la insuficiencia de vena safena mayor que pueden ser por ablación térmica, química o mecánica. Éstos tienen la ventaja de ser ambulatorios, presentar menos complicaciones postoperatorias, una rápida incorporación laboral y mejores resultados estéticos. El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar los resultados del tratamiento con radiofrecuencia versus crosectomía safenofemoral más oclusión endovascular distal. Material y Métodos: Estudio descriptivo prospectivo que incluyó a todos los pacientes con diagnóstico de insuficiencia de la vena safena mayor de enero 2017 a octubre 2019. La elección de la técnica a utilizar se hizo al azar. Resultados: El 77% correspondió al género femenino, con edad media 49 años, el estadío C:2 de la clasificación clíica CEAP fue la más frecuente (57%) y el shunt tipo 3 (63%). La ablación por radiofrecuencia se realizó con mayor frecuencia (83%). El dolor y parestesias (fueron las complicaciones más frecuentes en ambos grupos sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas (p = 0.1470). No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativo entre las dos técnicas quirúrgicas realizadas en resultado estético (p = 0.4456), el retorno de actividades cotidianas (p = 0.992) ni las laborales (p = 0.901). Conclusiones: Tanto la ablación por radiofrecuencia de la vena safena mayor como la crosectomía safenofemoral más oclusión endovascular distal se consideran dos métodos seguros y efectivos para tratar insuficiencia de vena safena mayor; ya que los resultados finales fueron similares para ambas técnicas quirúrgicas.
Introduction: Minimally invasive endovascular procedures like thermal, chemical or mechanical ablation are currently preferred for the treatment of the great saphenous vein insufficiency, because have the advantage of being outpatient, with minimal postoperative complications, a faster incorporation to work and better aesthetic results. This study persuit to evaluate the results of radiofrequency treatment versus sapheno-femoral crosectomy plus distal endovascular occlusion. Methods: The study included all the patients with a diagnosis of great saphenous vein insufficiency from January 2017 to October 2019. The technic was chosen randomly. Results: 77% of patients was female , with a mean age of 49 , the C2 stage of the CEAP classification is present in 57% and the type 3 shunt in 63%. Radiofrequency ablation was performed in 83% of the cases. Pain and paresthesia were the most frequent complications, without statistically signification between both technics (p = 0.1470). The aesthetic result, the return to daily activities (p = 0.992) and to work (p = 0.901) had not statistically significant differences between the two surgical techniques. Conclusions: Both, radiofrequency ablation of the greater saphenous vein and sapheno-femoral crosectomy plus distal endovascular occlusion are considered safe and effective methods to treat great saphenous vein insufficiency because the final results were similar for both surgical techniques.