Systematic review evaluates volume reduction in cystic thyroid nodules treated with ethanol injection, indicating effective outcomes.
Objective To evaluate the short- and mid-term volume reduction rate(VRR) after percutaneous ethanol injection(PEI), at 1,3 and 6 months, in patients with cystic or predominantly cystic thyroid nodules(CNs/pCNs, respectively), conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data on VRR outcomes across these intervals. Design and methods A systematic search of articles published up to October 30,2025 identified studies reporting PEI treatment for CNs/pCNs.Characteristics of the study design, CNs/pCNs cohorts, and outcomes of interest(VRR at 1,3 and 6 months of follow up)were extracted.Statistical analysis included a random-effects meta-analysis, assessment of heterogeneity with use of the I 2 statistic, and meta-regression and subgroup analyses to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Results Six studies comprising 431 CNs/pCNs were included.The pooled VRRs at 1,3 and 6 months post-PEI were 85.18%(95% CI: 80.72–89.64),91.50%(95% CI: 88.88–94.12) and 93.11%(95% CI: 90.91–95.31),respectively. Stratifying by nodule cystic composition, the VRR at consecutive follow-up time points was significantly different between the 1- and 3-month intervals in both subgroups [CN: VRRs at 1, 3 and 6 months were 91.16% (88.38–93.93), 95.69% (94.16–97.22) and 96.02% (94.16–97.87), respectively; pCN: VRRs at 1,3 and 6 months were respectively 80.19% (77.04–83.33), 87.08% (84.95–89.2) and 90.01%(88.83–91.19)].A secondary meta-regression analysis with baseline mean volume as covariate demonstrated a significant inverse association with VRR at 1 and 3 months in pCN( p = 0.02). Conclusion By providing pooled VRRs for the short- and mid-term follow-up, this meta-analysis should be regarded as an initial step, paving the way for larger, high-quality studies aimed at standardizing the PEI procedure and supporting its incorporation into future dedicated guidelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sellasie et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: