| Title |
Radiofrequency ablation versus magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound surgery for minimally invasive treatment of osteoid osteoma: a propensity score matching study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Radiology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00330-015-4111-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlo Masciocchi, Luigi Zugaro, Francesco Arrigoni, Giovanni Luca Gravina, Silvia Mariani, Alice La Marra, Carmine Zoccali, Stefano Flamini, Antonio Barile |
| Abstract |
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. 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. 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. 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. • 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Austria | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 61 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 24% |
| Unknown | 18 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 40% |
| Engineering | 7 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 23 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,758,825
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#988
of 4,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,017
of 387,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#11
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,156 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 387,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.