A meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of hot and cold contrast ablation for the treatment of lung cancer.

This meta-analysis evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of cryoablation and thermal ablation in the treatment of lung cancer. A comprehensive search of relevant literature was conducted in databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, covering the period from the establishment of each database up to April 1, 2025. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software. Ultimately, 12 retrospective studies involving a total of 907 patients were included, with 422 patients undergoing cryoablation and 485 receiving thermal ablation. The results indicated that cryoablation was associated with a longer operative duration (p < 0.00001), but demonstrated superior intraoperative pain control (p < 0.00001) and a lower postoperative fever rate (p = 0.01). With regard to short-term and long-term therapeutic outcomes, as well as certain complications, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two modalities. In summary, both ablation techniques exhibited comparable efficacy in the treatment of lung cancer, with cryoablation offering improved intraoperative comfort and a reduced incidence of postoperative fever compared to thermal ablation.