Differences in baseline covariates are not intrinsically a bad thing. Given the small sample size, and the possible number of "covariates" compared, it's almost a certainty one or more will show "imbalance" - but that's just an artifact of an uncontrolled familywise error rate - and hey, what's the primary endpoint anyway?
It's most useful to think of the randomization assumption not as balancing a possibly infinite list of covariates, but balancing their "average effect" on each group; exactly the rationale for propensity matching. Stephen Senn has written extensively on this issue as one of the major "myths" of clinical trials - and we must infer by the convention of "treated" and "control" that this is a randomized study. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sim.5713
Dr. Senn goes on the explain that imbalance is much different from confounding, since even if the variable is associated with the outcome, it is theoretically unrelated to randomization, unless there is some kind of conditional analysis such as in the "per protocol" population. In spite of all this, adjustment prevails as the superior way to handle imbalance because, given the variable conditioned upon is prognostic - i.e. it actually predicts the outcome - the tendency is to increase power. Variables that are not strongly predictive of the response tend to attenuate the power of the test when adjusted willy nilly.
But all of this goes in the bin if it's not actually a prespecified analysis. This is because you can't choose the analysis that you finally do based upon what you see in the data. Do the analysis you planned, it's probably the right one.