PURPOSE: To compare radiofrequency (RF) ablations created by using a sequential technique to those created simultaneously by using a switching algorithm in ex vivo and in vivo liver models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: RF ablation was performed by using either sequential or switched application of three cooled electrodes in a 2-cm triangular array in ex vivo bovine liver (28 total ablations) and in vivo swine liver (12 total ablations) models. For sequential ablations, electrodes were powered for 12 minutes each with a 5-minute rest interval between activations to simulate electrode repositioning. Switched ablations were created by using a multiple-electrode switching system for 12 minutes. Temperatures were measured during ex vivo experiments at four points in the ablation zone. Ablation zones were measured for minimum and maximum diameter, cross-sectional area, and isoperimetric ratio. Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon matched pairs tests were used to identify differences between groups. RESULTS: The switched application created larger and more circular zones of ablation than did the sequential application, with mean (+/-standard deviation) ex vivo cross-sectional areas of 25.4 cm(2) +/- 5 .3 and 18.8 cm(2) +/- 6.6 (P = .001), respectively, and mean in vivo areas of 17.1 cm(2) +/- 5.1 and 13.2 cm(2) +/- 4.2 (P < .05). Higher temperatures and more rapid heating occurred with the switched application; switched treatments were 74% faster than sequential treatments (12 vs 46 minutes). In the sequential group, subsequent ablations grew progressively larger due to local ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: Switched application of three electrodes creates larger, more confluent ablations in less time than sequential application. Thermal synergy and ablation-induced ischemia both substantially influence multiple-electrode ablations.
PURPOSE: To compare radiofrequency (RF) ablations created by using a sequential technique to those created simultaneously by using a switching algorithm in ex vivo and in vivo liver models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: RF ablation was performed by using either sequential or switched application of three cooled electrodes in a 2-cm triangular array in ex vivo bovine liver (28 total ablations) and in vivo swine liver (12 total ablations) models. For sequential ablations, electrodes were powered for 12 minutes each with a 5-minute rest interval between activations to simulate electrode repositioning. Switched ablations were created by using a multiple-electrode switching system for 12 minutes. Temperatures were measured during ex vivo experiments at four points in the ablation zone. Ablation zones were measured for minimum and maximum diameter, cross-sectional area, and isoperimetric ratio. Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon matched pairs tests were used to identify differences between groups. RESULTS: The switched application created larger and more circular zones of ablation than did the sequential application, with mean (+/-standard deviation) ex vivo cross-sectional areas of 25.4 cm(2) +/- 5 .3 and 18.8 cm(2) +/- 6.6 (P = .001), respectively, and mean in vivo areas of 17.1 cm(2) +/- 5.1 and 13.2 cm(2) +/- 4.2 (P < .05). Higher temperatures and more rapid heating occurred with the switched application; switched treatments were 74% faster than sequential treatments (12 vs 46 minutes). In the sequential group, subsequent ablations grew progressively larger due to local ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: Switched application of three electrodes creates larger, more confluent ablations in less time than sequential application. Thermal synergy and ablation-induced ischemia both substantially influence multiple-electrode ablations.
Authors: Fred T Lee; Dieter Haemmerich; Andrew S Wright; David M Mahvi; Lisa A Sampson; John G Webster Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Paul F Laeseke; Lisa A Sampson; Dieter Haemmerich; Chris L Brace; Jason P Fine; Tina M Frey; Thomas C Winter; Fred T Lee Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Debra A Gervais; Francis J McGovern; Ronald S Arellano; W Scott McDougal; Peter R Mueller Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Colin M Harari; Michelle Magagna; Mariajose Bedoya; Fred T Lee; Meghan G Lubner; J Louis Hinshaw; Timothy Ziemlewicz; Christopher L Brace Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 11.105
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
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: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 3.464