OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical application value of a 3D visualisation preoperative treatment planning system in microwave ablation for liver cancer. METHODS: From December 2011 to November 2012, 94 enrolment patients of liver cancer were divided into two groups. The 3D preoperative planning group included 36 patients with 44 lesions, who underwent microwave ablation with the aid of the self-developed 3D visualisation preoperative treatment planning system. The 2D preoperative planning group included 58 patients with 64 lesions, who underwent microwave ablation according to conventional 2D image preoperative planning methods. After microwave ablation, therapeutic efficacy was assessed by contrast-enhanced imaging during follow-up. RESULTS: The 3D preoperative planning group had a higher success rate of first ablation than the 2D preoperative planning group (p = 0.01). There were more sessions in the 2D preoperative planning group than in the 3D preoperative planning group (p = 0.002). There were no significant differences in technique effectiveness rate between the 2D preoperative planning group (96.55%) and the 3D preoperative planning group (100%) according to the contrast-enhanced imaging follow-up after microwave ablation (p = 0.64). There were no significant differences in the rate of LTP between the 2D preoperative planning group and the 3D preoperative planning group (p = 0.64) during 3-12 months follow up (median 6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the 2D preoperative planning group, the 3D preoperative planning group had a higher success rate of first ablation and fewer sessions. Therefore, the 3D visualisation preoperative treatment planning system has a relatively high clinical application value.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical application value of a 3D visualisation preoperative treatment planning system in microwave ablation for liver cancer. METHODS: From December 2011 to November 2012, 94 enrolment patients of liver cancer were divided into two groups. The 3D preoperative planning group included 36 patients with 44 lesions, who underwent microwave ablation with the aid of the self-developed 3D visualisation preoperative treatment planning system. The 2D preoperative planning group included 58 patients with 64 lesions, who underwent microwave ablation according to conventional 2D image preoperative planning methods. After microwave ablation, therapeutic efficacy was assessed by contrast-enhanced imaging during follow-up. RESULTS: The 3D preoperative planning group had a higher success rate of first ablation than the 2D preoperative planning group (p = 0.01). There were more sessions in the 2D preoperative planning group than in the 3D preoperative planning group (p = 0.002). There were no significant differences in technique effectiveness rate between the 2D preoperative planning group (96.55%) and the 3D preoperative planning group (100%) according to the contrast-enhanced imaging follow-up after microwave ablation (p = 0.64). There were no significant differences in the rate of LTP between the 2D preoperative planning group and the 3D preoperative planning group (p = 0.64) during 3-12 months follow up (median 6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the 2D preoperative planning group, the 3D preoperative planning group had a higher success rate of first ablation and fewer sessions. Therefore, the 3D visualisation preoperative treatment planning system has a relatively high clinical application value.