RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare thermal dosimetry metrics for specified diameters of coagulation achieved using three different ablation energy sources. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 204 ablations measuring 20, 30, or 40 +/- 2 mm were created in an ex-vivo bovine liver model using 1) 2.5 cm cluster RF electrodes (n = 114), 2) 3 cm microwave antennas (n = 45), and 3) 3 cm laser diffusing fibers (n = 45). Continuous temperature monitoring was performed 5-20 mm from the applicators to calculate: a) the area under the curve (AUC), b) cumulative equivalent minutes at 43 degrees C (CEM43), and c) Arrhenius damage integral (Omega) for the critical ablation margin (DOC), with results compared by multivariate analysis of variance and regression analysis. RESULTS: The end temperatures at the margin of coagulation varied, and was lowest for the RF cluster electrode (33-58 degrees C), higher for laser (52-72 degrees C), and covered the widest range for microwave (42-95 degrees C). These end temperatures correlated with applied energy, as linear functions (r(2) = 0.74-0.96). The total heat needed to achieve ablation (AUC) varied with applied energy and coagulation diameter as negative exponential (RF and laser) or negative power (microwave) functions (r(2) = 0.82-0.98). Similarly, CEM43 values varied exponentially with energy and distance (r(2) = 0.52-0.76) over a wide range of values (10(12)). Likewise, Omega varied not only based upon energy source and DOC, but also as a positive linear correlation to applied energy and with sigmoid correlation to duration of ablation (r(2) = 0.85-0.97). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that the thermal dosimetry of ablation is not based solely on a fixed end temperature at the margin of the coagulation zone. Thermal dosimetry is not constant, but dependent on the type and amount of energy applied and distance suggesting the need to take into account the rate of heat transfer for ablation dosimetry.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare thermal dosimetry metrics for specified diameters of coagulation achieved using three different ablation energy sources. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 204 ablations measuring 20, 30, or 40 +/- 2 mm were created in an ex-vivo bovine liver model using 1) 2.5 cm cluster RF electrodes (n = 114), 2) 3 cm microwave antennas (n = 45), and 3) 3 cm laser diffusing fibers (n = 45). Continuous temperature monitoring was performed 5-20 mm from the applicators to calculate: a) the area under the curve (AUC), b) cumulative equivalent minutes at 43 degrees C (CEM43), and c) Arrhenius damage integral (Omega) for the critical ablation margin (DOC), with results compared by multivariate analysis of variance and regression analysis. RESULTS: The end temperatures at the margin of coagulation varied, and was lowest for the RF cluster electrode (33-58 degrees C), higher for laser (52-72 degrees C), and covered the widest range for microwave (42-95 degrees C). These end temperatures correlated with applied energy, as linear functions (r(2) = 0.74-0.96). The total heat needed to achieve ablation (AUC) varied with applied energy and coagulation diameter as negative exponential (RF and laser) or negative power (microwave) functions (r(2) = 0.82-0.98). Similarly, CEM43 values varied exponentially with energy and distance (r(2) = 0.52-0.76) over a wide range of values (10(12)). Likewise, Omega varied not only based upon energy source and DOC, but also as a positive linear correlation to applied energy and with sigmoid correlation to duration of ablation (r(2) = 0.85-0.97). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that the thermal dosimetry of ablation is not based solely on a fixed end temperature at the margin of the coagulation zone. Thermal dosimetry is not constant, but dependent on the type and amount of energy applied and distance suggesting the need to take into account the rate of heat transfer for ablation dosimetry.
Authors: S N Goldberg; M C Stein; G S Gazelle; R G Sheiman; J B Kruskal; M E Clouse Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 1999 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: L Solbiati; T Livraghi; S N Goldberg; T Ierace; F Meloni; M Dellanoce; L Cova; E F Halpern; G S Gazelle Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Erik Velez; S Nahum Goldberg; Gaurav Kumar; Yuanguo Wang; Svetlana Gourevitch; Jacob Sosna; Tyler Moon; Christopher L Brace; Muneeb Ahmed Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Alexander Johnson; Anthony Sprangers; Patrick Cassidy; Sean Heyrman; J Louis Hinshaw; Meghan Lubner; John Puccinelli; Chris Brace Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 3.368