Comparison of the Therapeutic Efficacy and Technical Outcomes between Conventional Fixed Electrodes and Adjustable Electrodes in the Radiofrequency Ablation of Benign Thyroid Nodules

• Published in: Korean journal of radiology Vol. 25; no. 2; pp. 199 - 209
• Main Authors: Jae Ho Shin, Minkook Seo, Min Kyoung Lee, So Lyung Jung
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Korean
• Published: 2024
• Subjects: Radiofrequency ablation; Ultrasound; Nodule; Thyroid
• ISSN: 1229-6929; 2005-8330

Objective: This study aimed to compare therapeutic efficacy and technical outcomes between adjustable electrode (AE) and conventional fixed electrode (FE) for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of benign thyroid nodules. Materials and Methods: Between 2013 and 2021, RFA was performed on histologically proven benign thyroid nodules. For the AE method, AE length ≥ 1 cm with higher power and < 1 cm with lower power were utilized for ablating feeding vessels and nodules, especially those near anatomical structures, respectively. The therapeutic efficacy (volume reduction rate [VRR], complication rate, and regrowth rate) and technical outcomes (total energy delivery, ablated volume/energy, RFA time, and ablated volume/time) of FE and AE were compared. Continuous parameters were compared using a two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test, and categorical parameters were compared using a chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. Results: A total of 182 nodules (FE: 92 vs. AE: 90) in 173 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 47.0 ± 14.7 years; female, 90.8% [157/173]; median follow-up, 726 days [interquartile range, 441-1075 days]) were analyzed. The therapeutic efficacy was comparable, whereas technical outcomes were more favorable for AE. Both electrodes demonstrated comparable overall median VRR (FE: 92.4% vs. AE: 84.9%, P = 0.240) without immediate major complications. Overall regrowth rates were comparable between the two groups (FE: 2.2% [2/90] vs. AE: 1.1% [1/90], P > 0.99). AE demonstrated a shorter median RFA time (FE: 811 vs. AE: 627 seconds, P = 0.009). Both delivered comparable median energy (FE: 42.8 vs. AE: 29.2 kJ, P = 0.069), but AE demonstrated higher median ablated volume/energy and median ablated volume/time (FE: 0.2 vs. AE: 0.3 cc/kJ, P < 0.001; and FE: 0.7 vs. AE: 1.0 cc/min, P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Therapeutic efficacy between FE and AE was comparable. AE demonstrated better technical outcomes than FE in terms of RFA time, ablated volume/energy, and ablated volume/time.