![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Objective
A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of cryoablation (CRA) compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA).
Methods
A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, CNKI, and VIP databases was conducted to identify clinical controlled studies comparing CRA versus RFA for hepatic malignancies up to July 2022. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.
Results
A comprehensive analysis was conducted on 8 clinical controlled studies involving a total of 943 patients. There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications, complete ablation of lesions, local recurrence, and 1-year survival between the CRA and RFA groups (OR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.61–1.55, p = 0.92; OR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.62–1.90, p = 0.78; OR = 1.28, 95%CI: 0.49–3.36, p = 0.61; and OR = 1.14, 95%CI: 0.63–2.06, p = 0.66, respectively).
Conclusion
The efficacy and safety profile of CRA was comparable to that of RFA in the context of ablation therapy for hepatic malignancies. These findings suggested that CRA may be a valuable alternative to RFA in the treatment of hepatic malignancies.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
For this type of study informed consent is not required.
Consent for publication
For this type of study consent for publication is not required.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data availability statement
I confirm I understand the terms of the share upon reasonable request data policy, the DOI of our data is 10.6084/m9.figshare.24230857.