PURPOSE: To determine whether microwave ablation with high-power triaxial antennas creates significantly larger ablation zones than radiofrequency (RF) ablation with similarly sized internally cooled electrodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight 12-minute ablations were performed in an in vivo porcine kidney model. RF ablations were performed with a 200-W pulsed generator and either a single 17-gauge cooled electrode (n = 9) or three switched electrodes spaced 1.5 cm apart (n = 7). Microwave ablations were performed with one (n = 7), two (n = 3), or three (n = 2) 17-gauge triaxial antennas to deliver 90 W continuous power per antenna. Multiple antennas were powered simultaneously. Temperatures 1 cm from the applicator were measured during two RF and microwave ablations each. Animals were euthanized after ablation and ablation zone diameter, cross-sectional area, and circularity were measured. Comparisons between groups were performed with use of a mixed-effects model with P values less than .05 indicating statistical significance. RESULTS: No adverse events occurred during the procedures. Three-electrode RF (mean area, 14.7 cm(2)) and single-antenna microwave (mean area, 10.9 cm(2)) ablation zones were significantly larger than single-electrode RF zones (mean area, 5.6 cm(2); P = .001 and P = .0355, respectively). No significant differences were detected between single-antenna microwave and multiple-electrode RF. Ablation zone circularity was similar across groups (P > .05). Tissue temperatures were higher during microwave ablation (maximum temperature of 123 degrees C vs 100 degrees C for RF). CONCLUSIONS: Microwave ablation with high-power triaxial antennas created larger ablation zones in normal porcine kidneys than RF ablation with similarly sized applicators.
PURPOSE: To determine whether microwave ablation with high-power triaxial antennas creates significantly larger ablation zones than radiofrequency (RF) ablation with similarly sized internally cooled electrodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight 12-minute ablations were performed in an in vivo porcine kidney model. RF ablations were performed with a 200-W pulsed generator and either a single 17-gauge cooled electrode (n = 9) or three switched electrodes spaced 1.5 cm apart (n = 7). Microwave ablations were performed with one (n = 7), two (n = 3), or three (n = 2) 17-gauge triaxial antennas to deliver 90 W continuous power per antenna. Multiple antennas were powered simultaneously. Temperatures 1 cm from the applicator were measured during two RF and microwave ablations each. Animals were euthanized after ablation and ablation zone diameter, cross-sectional area, and circularity were measured. Comparisons between groups were performed with use of a mixed-effects model with P values less than .05 indicating statistical significance. RESULTS: No adverse events occurred during the procedures. Three-electrode RF (mean area, 14.7 cm(2)) and single-antenna microwave (mean area, 10.9 cm(2)) ablation zones were significantly larger than single-electrode RF zones (mean area, 5.6 cm(2); P = .001 and P = .0355, respectively). No significant differences were detected between single-antenna microwave and multiple-electrode RF. Ablation zone circularity was similar across groups (P > .05). Tissue temperatures were higher during microwave ablation (maximum temperature of 123 degrees C vs 100 degrees C for RF). CONCLUSIONS: Microwave ablation with high-power triaxial antennas created larger ablation zones in normal porcine kidneys than RF ablation with similarly sized applicators.
Authors: Christopher L Brace; Paul F Laeseke; Lisa A Sampson; Tina M Frey; Daniel W van der Weide; Fred T Lee Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: William W Hope; Thomas M Schmelzer; William L Newcomb; Jessica J Heath; Amy E Lincourt; H James Norton; B Todd Heniford; David A Iannitti Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2008-04-28 Impact factor: 2.192
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: Debra A Gervais; Ronald S Arellano; Francis J McGovern; W Scott McDougal; Peter R Mueller Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J J Hwang; M M Walther; S E Pautler; J A Coleman; J Hvizda; James Peterson; W M Linehan; B J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christopher L Brace; Paul F Laeseke; Daniel W van der Weide; Fred T Lee Journal: IEEE Trans Microw Theory Tech Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Rüdiger Hoffmann; Hansjörg Rempp; Frank Eibofner; David-Emanuel Keßler; Gunnar Blumenstock; Jakob Weiß; Philippe L Pereira; Konstantin Nikolaou; Stephan Clasen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Marki E Klapperich; E Jason Abel; Timothy J Ziemlewicz; Sara Best; Meghan G Lubner; Stephen Y Nakada; J Louis Hinshaw; Christopher L Brace; Fred T Lee; Shane A Wells Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-01-11 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: P Balageas; F Cornelis; Y Le Bras; R Hubrecht; J C Bernhard; J M Ferrière; A Ravaud; N Grenier Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 5.315