PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate, in vivo in pigs, an impedance-based multiple-electrode radiofrequency (RF) ablation system for creation of confluent areas of hepatic coagulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was preapproved by the institutional research animal care and use committee. A prototype multiple-electrode RF system that enables switching between three electrically independent electrodes at impedance spikes was created. Forty-two coagulation zones (18 with single, 12 with cluster, and 12 with multiple [three single electrodes spaced 2 cm apart] electrodes) were created at laparotomy in 15 female pigs. Half the ablations were performed for 12 minutes, and half were performed for 16 minutes. The coagulation zones were excised and sliced into approximately 3-mm sections for measurement. Analysis of variance and two-sample t tests (with Bonferroni correction, alpha = .0033) were used to assess for differences between groups. RESULTS: At 12 minutes, the mean multiple-electrode coagulation was significantly larger than the mean single-electrode coagulation (minimum diameter, 2.8 vs 1.6 cm; maximum diameter, 4.2 vs 2.0 cm; volume, 22.1 vs 6.7 cm(3); P < .0033 for all comparisons). The mean maximum diameter achieved at 12 minutes with multiple electrodes was significantly larger than that achieved with the cluster electrode (4.2 vs 2.9 cm, P = .02). At 16 minutes, the mean multiple-electrode coagulation (minimum diameter, 3.2 cm; maximum diameter, 4.2 cm; volume, 29.1 cm(3)) was significantly larger than the mean single-electrode (minimum diameter, 1.7 cm; maximum diameter, 2.2 cm; volume, 7.1 cm(3); P < .0033 for all comparisons) and cluster-electrode (minimum diameter: 2.3 cm, P = .007; maximum diameter: 3.2 cm, P = .005; volume: 13.1 cm(3), P = .001) coagulations. CONCLUSION: Compared with the single and cluster systems used as controls, the multiple-electrode RF ablation system enabled the creation of significantly larger coagulation zones. (c) RSNA, 2006.
PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate, in vivo in pigs, an impedance-based multiple-electrode radiofrequency (RF) ablation system for creation of confluent areas of hepatic coagulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was preapproved by the institutional research animal care and use committee. A prototype multiple-electrode RF system that enables switching between three electrically independent electrodes at impedance spikes was created. Forty-two coagulation zones (18 with single, 12 with cluster, and 12 with multiple [three single electrodes spaced 2 cm apart] electrodes) were created at laparotomy in 15 female pigs. Half the ablations were performed for 12 minutes, and half were performed for 16 minutes. The coagulation zones were excised and sliced into approximately 3-mm sections for measurement. Analysis of variance and two-sample t tests (with Bonferroni correction, alpha = .0033) were used to assess for differences between groups. RESULTS: At 12 minutes, the mean multiple-electrode coagulation was significantly larger than the mean single-electrode coagulation (minimum diameter, 2.8 vs 1.6 cm; maximum diameter, 4.2 vs 2.0 cm; volume, 22.1 vs 6.7 cm(3); P < .0033 for all comparisons). The mean maximum diameter achieved at 12 minutes with multiple electrodes was significantly larger than that achieved with the cluster electrode (4.2 vs 2.9 cm, P = .02). At 16 minutes, the mean multiple-electrode coagulation (minimum diameter, 3.2 cm; maximum diameter, 4.2 cm; volume, 29.1 cm(3)) was significantly larger than the mean single-electrode (minimum diameter, 1.7 cm; maximum diameter, 2.2 cm; volume, 7.1 cm(3); P < .0033 for all comparisons) and cluster-electrode (minimum diameter: 2.3 cm, P = .007; maximum diameter: 3.2 cm, P = .005; volume: 13.1 cm(3), P = .001) coagulations. CONCLUSION: Compared with the single and cluster systems used as controls, the multiple-electrode RF ablation system enabled the creation of significantly larger coagulation zones. (c) RSNA, 2006.
Authors: B Cady; R L Jenkins; G D Steele; W D Lewis; M D Stone; W V McDermott; J M Jessup; A Bothe; P Lalor; E J Lovett; P Lavin; D C Linehan Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kelvin K Ng; Chi Ming Lam; Ronnie T Poon; Tony W Shek; Wan Ching Yu; Jensen Y To; Yim Hung Wo; Cecilia P Lau; Terence C Tang; David W Ho; Sheung Tat Fan Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-03-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: S B Chinn; F T Lee; G D Kennedy; C Chinn; C D Johnson; T C Winter; T F Warner; D M Mahvi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Meghan G Lubner; J Louis Hinshaw; Anita Andreano; Lisa Sampson; Fred T Lee; Christopher L Brace Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Guilherme Lopes P Martins; Joao Paulo G Bernardes; Marcello S Rovella; Raphael G Andrade; Publio Cesar C Viana; Paulo Herman; Giovanni Guido Cerri; Marcos Roberto Menezes Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Muneeb Ahmed; Luigi Solbiati; Christopher L Brace; David J Breen; Matthew R Callstrom; J William Charboneau; Min-Hua Chen; Byung Ihn Choi; Thierry de Baère; Gerald D Dodd; Damian E Dupuy; Debra A Gervais; David Gianfelice; Alice R Gillams; Fred T Lee; Edward Leen; Riccardo Lencioni; Peter J Littrup; Tito Livraghi; David S Lu; John P McGahan; Maria Franca Meloni; Boris Nikolic; Philippe L Pereira; Ping Liang; Hyunchul Rhim; Steven C Rose; Riad Salem; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Stephen B Solomon; Michael C Soulen; Masatoshi Tanaka; Thomas J Vogl; Bradford J Wood; S Nahum Goldberg Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-06-13 Impact factor: 11.105