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

Abstract

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.