Atic, RamazanAlemdar, CelilElci, SerhatDusak, Abdurrahimcacan, Mehmet AkifOzkul, EminAytekin, Mahmut Nedim2024-04-242024-04-2420231643-3750https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.940292https://hdl.handle.net/11468/18350Background: This retrospective study aims to compare the efficacy of computed tomography-guided percutaneous excision and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of osteoid osteoma. Material/Methods: We evaluated 40 patients with osteoid osteoma who underwent either percutaneous excision or radiofrequency ablation between 2012 and 2015. The cohort consisted of 10 female and 30 male patients, with a mean age of 15.1 years (range: 4-27 years) and a mean follow-up time of 19.02 months (range: 11-39 months). Percutaneous excision was performed in 20 patients, while radiofrequency ablation was performed in the remaining 20 patients. Results: The success rates of percutaneous excision and radiofrequency ablation were comparable, with unsuccessful outcomes observed in 10% and 5% of patients, respectively. The reasons for failure in the percutaneous excision group were attributed to a marking error and incomplete excision of the wide-based nidus. Complications were limited to pathological fracture (n=1) and deep infection (n=1) in the percutaneous excision group, while no complications were encountered in the radiofrequency ablation group. Conclusions: Both percutaneous excision and radiofrequency ablation demonstrate high success rates in treating osteoid osteoma. However, radiofrequency ablation offers the advantage of a quicker return to daily activities without the need for activity restrictions or splints. While being a more cost-effective option, percutaneous excision should be considered cautiously to minimize potential complications.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRadiofrequency AblationOsteomaOsteoidOrthopedic ProceduresArticle29WOS:0010404972000012-s2.0-851627493283734998210.12659/MSM.940292Q1N/A