PURPOSE: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is becoming increasingly popular for the minimally invasive treatment of benign and malignant tumors. Currently available systems are limited to the use of a single probe because of electrical interactions between probes. The purpose of this study was to test a new prototype multiple probe generator with a built-in switching mechanism to determine if multiple zones of necrosis could be formed simultaneously without a significant penalty in terms of lesion size and procedure time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dual probe generator was created by modifying a commercially available system into an alternating monopolar system with an external electronic switch controlled by a temperature feedback loop. A total of 20 radiofrequency (RF) lesions (conventional single probe, n = 10; switched dual probe, n = 10) were created in the livers of six adult pigs (temperature, 100 degrees C; 10-minute ablation). Lesions were excised and examined for volume, minimum diameter, and maximum diameter. RESULTS: The time to target temperature was slightly greater for dual (3.5 minutes) versus single ablations (2.7 minutes). However, this resulted in only a 48 second (6.5%) longer total ablation time. There was no significant difference between conventional single and dual lesions for lesion volume (13.6 +/- 9.3 cm(3) versus 13.7 +/- 7.0 cm(3); P >.05), minimum diameter (1.63 +/- 0.56 cm(3) versus 1.61 +/- 0.53; P >.05) or maximum diameter (3.3 +/- 0.84 versus 3.4 +/- 0.55, P >.05). CONCLUSION: A multiple probe RFA system that can simultaneously ablate multiple areas in the liver is feasible. If multiple probe units become clinically available, large or irregularly shaped lesions could be treated more effectively than with conventional single probe units, and multiple tumors could be ablated simultaneously, thus potentially decreasing procedure time and anesthetic complications.
PURPOSE: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is becoming increasingly popular for the minimally invasive treatment of benign and malignant tumors. Currently available systems are limited to the use of a single probe because of electrical interactions between probes. The purpose of this study was to test a new prototype multiple probe generator with a built-in switching mechanism to determine if multiple zones of necrosis could be formed simultaneously without a significant penalty in terms of lesion size and procedure time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dual probe generator was created by modifying a commercially available system into an alternating monopolar system with an external electronic switch controlled by a temperature feedback loop. A total of 20 radiofrequency (RF) lesions (conventional single probe, n = 10; switched dual probe, n = 10) were created in the livers of six adult pigs (temperature, 100 degrees C; 10-minute ablation). Lesions were excised and examined for volume, minimum diameter, and maximum diameter. RESULTS: The time to target temperature was slightly greater for dual (3.5 minutes) versus single ablations (2.7 minutes). However, this resulted in only a 48 second (6.5%) longer total ablation time. There was no significant difference between conventional single and dual lesions for lesion volume (13.6 +/- 9.3 cm(3) versus 13.7 +/- 7.0 cm(3); P >.05), minimum diameter (1.63 +/- 0.56 cm(3) versus 1.61 +/- 0.53; P >.05) or maximum diameter (3.3 +/- 0.84 versus 3.4 +/- 0.55, P >.05). CONCLUSION: A multiple probe RFA system that can simultaneously ablate multiple areas in the liver is feasible. If multiple probe units become clinically available, large or irregularly shaped lesions could be treated more effectively than with conventional single probe units, and multiple tumors could be ablated simultaneously, thus potentially decreasing procedure time and anesthetic complications.
Authors: E S Lee; J M Lee; W S Kim; S H Choi; I Joo; M Kim; D H Yoo; R-E Yoo; J K Han; B I Choi Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Charles T Burke; John M Cullen; Andrei State; Sashi Gadi; Kathy Wilber; Michael Rosenthal; Anna Bulysheva; Anthony Pease; Mathew A Mauro; Henry Fuchs Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Stefaan Mulier; Yi Miao; Peter Mulier; Benoit Dupas; Philippe Pereira; Thierry de Baere; Riccardo Lencioni; Raymond Leveillee; Guy Marchal; Luc Michel; Yicheng Ni Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-02-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Paul F Laeseke; Lisa A Sampson; Dieter Haemmerich; Christopher L Brace; Jason P Fine; Tina M Frey; Thomas C Winter; Fred T Lee Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-08-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wu Liu; James A Zagzebski; Tomy Varghese; Charles R Dyer; Udomchai Techavipoo; Timothy J Hall Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: I dos Santos; D Correia; A J M Soares; J A Góes; A F da Rocha; D Schutt; D Haemmerich Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 2.833