Finding Optimal Ablation Parameters for Multipolar Radiofrequency Ablation

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franz G. M. Poch ◽  
Christian Rieder ◽  
Hanne Ballhausen ◽  
Verena Knappe ◽  
Jörg Peter Ritz ◽  
...  

Purpose. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for primary liver tumors and liver metastases is restricted by a limited ablation size. Multipolar RFA is a technical advancement of RFA, which is able to achieve larger ablations. The aim of this ex vivo study was to determine optimal ablation parameters for multipolar RFA depending on applicator distance and energy input. Methods. RFA was carried out ex vivo in porcine livers with three internally cooled, bipolar applicators in multipolar ablation mode. Three different applicator distances were used and five different energy inputs were examined. Ablation zones were sliced along the cross-sectional area at the largest ablation diameter, orthogonally to the applicators. These slices were digitally measured and analyzed. Results. Sixty RFA were carried out. A limited growth of ablation area was seen in all test series. This increase was dependent on ablation time, but not on applicator distance. A steady state between energy input and energy loss was not observed. A saturation of the minimum radius of the ablation zone was reached. Differences in ablation radius between the three test series were seen for lowest and highest energy input ( P < .05). No differences were seen for medium amounts of energy ( P > .05). Conclusions. The ablation parameters applicator distance and energy input can be chosen in such a way, that minor deviations of the preplanned ablation parameters have no influence on the size of the ablation area.

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliel Ben-David ◽  
Isaac Nissenbaum ◽  
Svetlana Gurevich ◽  
Eric R. Cosman ◽  
S. Nahum Goldberg

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 150-155
Author(s):  
Haruyuki Takaki ◽  
Yuki Kodama ◽  
Hisao Miyamoto ◽  
Yuto Iijima ◽  
Yoshinari Kikuchi ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Hsin-Chih Huang ◽  
L. B. Gatchalian ◽  
Yi-Chung Hsieh ◽  
Wei-Ting Chen ◽  
Chen-Chun Lin ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives The objectives of this study were to determine the primary technique effectiveness (PTE), to compare the complete response and local recurrence rates between conspicuous and inconspicuous tumors using single and switching electrodes of real-time virtual sonography (RVS)-assisted radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in conspicuous and inconspicuous hepatic tumors under conventional ultrasonography (US). Subjects and method We compared the complete ablation of inconspicuous tumors with and without anatomical landmark (N = 54) with conspicuous liver tumors (N = 272). Conventional US imaging was done initially, and then these images were fused with CT or MRI arterial-venous-wash-out cross-sectional studies and synchronized with real-time US images. Results RVS-assisted RFA was technically feasible in all patients. The PTE rate after the first ablation was 94% (245/261) for conspicuous tumors, 88% (7/8) in inconspicuous tumors with landmark, and 78% (36/46) in inconspicuous tumors without landmark. The complete response (p = 0.1912 vs. p = 0.4776) and local recurrence rate (p = 0.1557 vs. p = 0.7982) were comparable in conspicuous tumors of both HCC and liver metastasis group when single or multiple switching was used. The cumulative local recurrence in the conspicuous and inconspicuous tumors of the HCC group (p = 0.9999) was almost parallel after 12 (10% vs. 4%) and 24 (13% vs. 4%) months of follow-up. In the liver metastasis group, the cumulative local recurrence for conspicuous tumors (p = 0.9564) was nearly equal after 12 and 24 months of monitoring (24% vs. 27%) while no recurrence was incurred for the inconspicuous tumors. Conclusion RVS-assisted RFA is an effective tool for the treatment of conspicuous and inconspicuous HCC and hepatic metastasis.


Radiology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 278 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mi Hye Yu ◽  
Jae Young Lee ◽  
Su Ryoung Jun ◽  
Kyung Won Kim ◽  
Se Hyung Kim ◽  
...  

Radiology ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 238 (3) ◽  
pp. 881-890 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Clasen ◽  
Diethard Schmidt ◽  
Andreas Boss ◽  
Klaus Dietz ◽  
Stefan M. Kröber ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document