| Literature DB >> 30210628 |
Tang Xiaoyin1, Li Ping1, Cui Dan1, Ding Min1, Chi Jiachang1, Wang Tao1, Shi Yaoping1, Wang Zhi1, Zhai Bo1.
Abstract
Purpose: This retrospective study aimed to explore the importance of risk assessment and hydrodissection pre-treatment for radiofrequency ablation of thyroid nodules and initially establish the concept of thyroid nodule risk assessment and the corresponding ablation norms. Method: Based on the specific location of thyroid nodules, risk assessment and the corresponding preventive measures for thyroid ablation were established. During the period of 2015.10-2017.5, a total of 382 patients were enrolled to compare the safety and efficacy of the ablation for patients with or without risk assessment and the corresponding preventive measures. Statistical analysis encompassed Independent T test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test/Chi-square test for categorical variables. Result: Of all 382 patients, 188 patients underwent ablation with risk assessment and the corresponding preventive measures before ablation and 194 without, respectively. The patient characteristics, risk grading, ablation time, thyroid function after ablation and the complete ablation rate showed no statistical differences exsisted between two groups (P>0.05). The complication in very high risk nodules was avoided in the group of patients with risk assessment and preventive measures before ablation.Entities:
Keywords: Ablation Techniques; Comparative Study.; Evaluation Studies; Neoplasm Grading; Thyroid Nodule
Year: 2018 PMID: 30210628 PMCID: PMC6134818 DOI: 10.7150/jca.26060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
The risk assessment system for the ablation of benign thyroid nodules
| Grade | Location of nodules |
|---|---|
| Grade 0, low risk | Nodules located in the thyroid parenchyma, and the distance between nodule edge and adjacent important structures was ≥ 2 mm. |
| Grade 1, median risk | The distance between nodule edge and carotid sheath, anterior cervical muscles or cervical posterior muscles was less than 2 mm. |
| Grade 2, high risk | The distance between nodule edge and trachea, esophagus, or recurrent laryngeal nerve was less than 2 mm. |
| Grade 3,Very high risk | Both Grade 1 and Grade 2 were existed. |
Figure 1Location of nodules in different risk grade. A, Grade 0, Low risk location. B, Grade 1, Median risk location. C, Grade 2, High risk location. D, Grade 3, Very high risk location.
Figure 2“Hydrodissection technique” for nodules in risk areas. A-H, the range and effect of the hydrodissection for nodules in different location.
Patient Characteristics
| Characteristics | 2015.10-2016.7 | 2016.8-2017.5 | P value* |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 194 | 188 | / |
| No. of nodules | 756 | 626 | / |
| No. of nodules treated per patient | 0.072 | ||
| Median (Range) | 3(1-17) | 3(1-12) | |
| 1 | 48(24.7%) | 38(20.2%) | |
| 2 | 28(14.4%) | 44(23.4%) | |
| >2 | 118(60.8%) | 106(56.4%) | |
| Size of nodules, mm | 0.576 | ||
| Median (Range) | 6.7(2-67) | 6.8(1-60) | |
| <=20mm | 682(90.2%) | 559(89.3%) | |
| >20mm | 74(9.8%) | 67(10.7%) | |
| Age, years | 0.64 | ||
| Median (Range) | 50(17-83) | 48(25-79) | |
| Gender | 0.30 | ||
| Male | 37(19.1%) | 44(23.4%) | |
| Female | 157(80.9%) | 144(76.6%) | |
| Thyroid function index, Median(Range) | |||
| FT3 | 4.99(2.95-7.96) | 4.895(3.28-8.45) | 0.84 |
| FT4 | 15.965(6.75-120) | 15.64(0.3-22.31) | 0.08 |
| TGAb | 0.12(0.12-2000) | 0.12(0.1-2000) | 0.33 |
| TPOAb | 11.415(1.78-660.9) | 15.485(0.1-600) | 0.90 |
| TRAb | 0.3(0.3-519.3) | 0.3(0.03-7.95) | 0.33 |
| TSH | 1.305(0.01-14.56) | 1.735(0.01-9.91) | 0.08 |
* P value was calculated using the Independent T test for continuous variables and Chi-square test for categorical variables.
The risk grading of patients between two periods
| Risk Grading | 2015.10-2016.7 | 2016.8-2017.5 | P value* | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nodules no. | Patients no**. | Nodules no. | Patients no**. | ||
| 0, Low risk | 64(8.5%) | 3(1.5%) | 45(7.2%) | 2(1.1%) | Nodules: |
| 1, Medium risk | 278(36.8%) | 27(13.9%) | 237(37.9%) | 26(13.8%) | |
| 2, High risk | 79(10.4%) | 9(4.6%) | 49(7.8%) | 8(4.3%) | Patients: |
| 3, Very high risk | 335(44.3%) | 155(80.0%) | 295(47.1%) | 152(80.8%) | |
* P value was calculated using the Chi-square test.
** The risk of patients was determined based on the highest risk of their nodules.
Figure 3A patient with a nodule of Grade 3. (A) Preoperative US, (B) Sterile water was injected along the carotid sheath, (C) Sterile water was injected into the backside of the thyroid, (D) Sterile water was injected into the space between the trachea and the thyroid gland, (E) Ablation with the Hydrodissection technique
The complications and clinical outcomes after ablation compared between two periods.
| 2015.10-2016.7 | 2016.8-2017.5 | P value* | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0, Low risk | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | / |
| 1, Medium risk | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | / |
| 2, High risk | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | / |
| 3, Very high risk | 4(2.1%) | 0(0%) | 0.123 |
| Severe bleeding | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | / |
| Skin burns | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | / |
| Damage of anterior cervical muscle | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | / |
| Damage of recurrent laryngeal nerve | 3(1.6%) | 0(0%) | 0.248 |
| Damage of esophagus | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | / |
| Damage of common carotid artery | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | / |
| Damage of internal jugular vein | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | / |
| Damage of parathyroid glands | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | / |
| Damage of cervical sympathetic trunk | 1(0.5%) | 0(0%) | 1.000 |
| Damage of vagus nerve | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | / |
| Total ablation time | 2.47 | 1.53 | 0.06 |
| FT3 | 4.855(3.7-11.99) | 4.88(3.64-53.69) | 0.08 |
| TGAb | 15.24(8.81-24.31) | 14.905(1.55-67.19) | 0.35 |
| TPOAb | 0.12(0.12-2000) | 0.12(0.12-4000) | 0.87 |
| TRAb | 10.885(5-600) | 16.57(5-600) | 0.34 |
| TSH | 0.3(0.3-10.96)) | 0.3(0.3-20.45) | 0.77 |
| FT4 | 1.495(0.01-36.52) | 1.69(0.01-12.04) | 0.66 |
* P value was calculated using the Independent T test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables.