Abstract
This study sought to conduct a meta-analysis of the relevant literature on radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and routine resection in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma (SHCC) in recent years, and to examine the clinical efficacy and safety of different schemes. PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Chinese biomedical literature, VIP Chinese journal and the Wanfang Database were used to comprehensively search for relevant papers on clinical control studies of RFA and the routine resection SHCC published between January 2008 and December 2019. The clinical efficacy and safety of different schemes in the treatment of SHCC were compared, including the overall survival rate within 1, 3, and 5 years, and the incidence of complications during treatment. A meta-analysis was undertaken using methods provided by the Cochrane Collaboration and RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 13 publications of studies were retrieved in which 2,384 patients participated. Of these patients, 1,256 (52.68%) were allocated to the RFA group and 1,128 patients (47.32%) to the conventional resection group. The effect size of the 1-year overall survival rate for the two groups was odds ratio (OR): 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.43-1.38]; Z test: P=0.32. The effect size of the overall survival rate within 3 years was OR: 0.71 (95% CI, 0.48-1.05); Z test: P=0.07. The difference was not statistically significant. The 5-year overall survival rate of the RFA group and conventional resection group was OR: 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40-0.72). The OR value fell within the CI, excluding 1; Z test: P<0.0001. The difference was statistically significant. The incidence of complications in the RFA group during treatment was lower than that in the conventional resection group (OR: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.32-0.69). The OR value was within the CI, excluding 1; Z test: P=0.0002. The difference was statistically significant. The short-term effect of RFA in the treatment of SHCC is basically the same as that of routine resection; however, the long-term effect is significantly lower than that of routine resection. RFA has a lower incidence of complications during treatment, and thus better clinical safety.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
