OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes in pain relief and motor functional recovery in patients with an osteoid osteoma treated bymagnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) using a propensity score matching study design. METHODS:Thirty patients with osteoid osteomas were included in this institutional review board (IRB)-approved study. MRgFUS was performed in 15 subjects. These subjects were matched by propensity analysis with a group of 15 subjects treated by RFA. Pain relief in terms of complete response (CR) and motor functional recovery were measured. RESULTS: A similar proportion of subjects treated by MRgFUS (94 %) or RFA (100 %) experienced CR 12 weeks after treatment, with no significant difference. The improvement in pain control following MRgFUS or RFA paralleled with improved motor functional recovery. The treatment failure rate was 6.6 % in the MRgFUS group and 0 % in the RFA group. No major complications were observed following either ablative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study involved a limited number of patients, MRgFUS favourably improves perceived pain and motor functional recovery, with no major complications. No difference was found in the achievement of primary and secondary outcome measures with respect to RFA. KEY POINTS: • To demonstrate the effectiveness of a recent technique for treating osteoid osteoma • MRgFUS results compared with results of the gold standard treatment (RFA) • MRgFUS is effective both from a clinical and functional point of view • No significant side effects compared with RFA.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes in pain relief and motor functional recovery in patients with an osteoid osteoma treated by magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) using a propensity score matching study design. METHODS: Thirty patients with osteoid osteomas were included in this institutional review board (IRB)-approved study. MRgFUS was performed in 15 subjects. These subjects were matched by propensity analysis with a group of 15 subjects treated by RFA. Pain relief in terms of complete response (CR) and motor functional recovery were measured. RESULTS: A similar proportion of subjects treated by MRgFUS (94 %) or RFA (100 %) experienced CR 12 weeks after treatment, with no significant difference. The improvement in pain control following MRgFUS or RFA paralleled with improved motor functional recovery. The treatment failure rate was 6.6 % in the MRgFUS group and 0 % in the RFA group. No major complications were observed following either ablative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study involved a limited number of patients, MRgFUS favourably improves perceived pain and motor functional recovery, with no major complications. No difference was found in the achievement of primary and secondary outcome measures with respect to RFA. KEY POINTS: • To demonstrate the effectiveness of a recent technique for treating osteoid osteoma • MRgFUS results compared with results of the gold standard treatment (RFA) • MRgFUS is effective both from a clinical and functional point of view • No significant side effects compared with RFA.
Authors: Christoph Rehnitz; Simon David Sprengel; Burkhard Lehner; Karl Ludwig; Georg Omlor; Christian Merle; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Volker Ewerbeck; Marc-André Weber Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: David Schlesinger; Stanley Benedict; Chris Diederich; Wladyslaw Gedroyc; Alexander Klibanov; James Larner Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Carlo Masciocchi; Armando Conchiglia; Lorenzo Maria Gregori; Francesco Arrigoni; Luigi Zugaro; Antonio Barile Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Kiriakos Daniilidis; N Martinelli; G Gosheger; S Hoell; M Henrichs; B Vogt; J Hardes; V Vieth Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: M Di Staso; L Zugaro; G L Gravina; P Bonfili; F Marampon; L Di Nicola; A Conchiglia; L Ventura; P Franzese; M Gallucci; C Masciocchi; V Tombolini Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-05-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Daniel I Rosenthal; Francis J Hornicek; Martin Torriani; Mark C Gebhardt; Henry J Mankin Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-08-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Carlo Masciocchi; Francesco Arrigoni; Fabiana Ferrari; Aldo Victor Giordano; Sonia Iafrate; Ilaria Capretti; Ester Cannizzaro; Alfonso Reginelli; Anna Maria Ierardi; Chiara Floridi; Alessio Salvatore Angileri; Luca Brunese; Antonio Barile Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: A Barile; F Bruno; S Mariani; F Arrigoni; L Brunese; M Zappia; A Splendiani; E Di Cesare; C Masciocchi Journal: Musculoskelet Surg Date: 2017-02-14
Authors: Antonio Barile; Simone Quarchioni; Federico Bruno; Anna Maria Ierardi; Francesco Arrigoni; Aldo Victor Giordano; Sergio Carducci; Marco Varrassi; Giampaolo Carrafiello; Ferdinando Caranci; Alessandra Splendiani; Ernesto Di Cesare; Carlo Masciocchi Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2018-04
Authors: Antonio Barile; Alice La Marra; Francesco Arrigoni; Silvia Mariani; Luigi Zugaro; Alessandra Splendiani; Ernesto Di Cesare; Alfonso Reginelli; Marcello Zappia; Luca Brunese; Ejona Duka; Giampaolo Carrafiello; Carlo Masciocchi Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Carlo Masciocchi; Francesco Arrigoni; Alice La Marra; Silvia Mariani; Luigi Zugaro; Antonio Barile Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Federico Bruno; Francesco Arrigoni; Nicola Maggialetti; Raffaele Natella; Alfonso Reginelli; Ernesto Di Cesare; Luca Brunese; Andrea Giovagnoni; Carlo Masciocchi; Alessandra Splendiani; Antonio Barile Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2019-04
Authors: Francesco Arrigoni; Federico Bruno; Luigi Zugaro; Alessandra Splendiani; Ernesto Di Cesare; Antonio Barile; Carlo Masciocchi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 3.469