| Literature DB >> 24812620 |
Petr Vavra1, Marek Penhaker2, Jan Grepl3, Jana Jurcikova4, Jiri Palecek5, Michal Crha6, Jana Nowakova2, Martin Hasal2, Martina Skrobankova5, Petr Ostruszka7, Peter Ihnat8, Patricie Delongova9, Dana Salounova10, Nagy A Habib11, Pavel Zonca8.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to inform about the development of a new semispherical surgical instrument for the bipolar multielectrode radiofrequency liver ablation. Present tools are universal; however they have several disadvantages such as ablation of healthy tissue, numerous needle punctures, and, therefore, longer operating procedure. Our newly designed and tested semispherical surgical tool can solve some of these disadvantages. By conducting an in vivo study on a set of 12 pigs, randomly divided into two groups, we have compared efficiency of the newly developed instrument with the commonly used device. Statistical analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the groups. On average, the tested instrument RONJA had shorter ablation time in both liver lobes and reduced the total operating time. The depth of the thermal alteration was on average 4 mm larger using the newly tested instrument. The new radiofrequency method described in this study could be used in open liver surgery for the treatment of small liver malignancies (up to 2 cm) in a single application with the aim of saving healthy liver parenchyma. Further experimental studies are needed to confirm these results before clinical application of the method in the treatment of human liver malignancies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24812620 PMCID: PMC4000950 DOI: 10.1155/2014/532792
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1RONJA—new radiofrequency surgical tool.
Figure 3Prototype of the semispherical tool for ex vivo study.
Figure 2Scheme of a new electrodes layout of our radiofrequency tool RONJA.
Figure 4Application of RONJA device—ex vivo experiment.
Figure 5Result of radiofrequency ablation—semispherical necrosis of liver tissue.
Figure 6Thermal camera image of the resection of liver parenchyma.
Operating data: there was a significant difference (P = 0.005) in supplied power between the groups.
| Standard device; | RONJA; |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| mean ± S.E.M. (median) | mean ± S.E.M. (median) | ||
| Weight 1 (kg) | 50.83 ± 3.55 (47.50) | 53.00 ± 4.69 (55.50) | 0.567 |
| Total operating time (min) | 69.00 ± 6.76 (77.00) | 57.50 ± 3.99 (53.50) | 0.567 |
| Ablation time of left lobe (min) | 11.67 ± 2.11 (11.50) | 8.83 ± 1.25 (7.50) | 0.567 |
| Ablation time of right lobe (min) | 8.50 ± 0.89 (8.00) | 7.33 ± 0.84 (7.00) | 1 |
| Supplied power (W) | 90.00 (unchanging) | 81.67 ± 1.67 (80.00) |
|
| Weight 2 (kg) | 52.92 ± 3.85 (49.50) | 55.17 ± 4.11 (57.50) | 0.567 |
| Laparoscopic total time (min) | 25.33 ± 5.08 (23.50) | 27.17 ± 4.66 (23.00) | 1 |
| Actual time of laparoscopy (min) | 13.83 ± 3.89 (14.00) | 6.00 ± 1.16 (5.00) | 0.567 |
| Weight 3 (kg) | 58.82 ± 4.35 (61.00) | 58.83 ± 4.89 (59.90) | 1 |
| Total weight increment (kg) | 6.62 ± 1.46 (7.00) | 5.83 ± 0.88 (6.65) | 0.567 |
| Liver weight (kg) | 1.54 ± 0.13 (1.50) | 1.48 ± 0.11 (1.48) | 1 |
Data concerning complications: there were no significant differences between the groups.
| Standard device; | RONJA; |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complications during surgery | 0 (0) | 1 (16.7) | 1 |
| Postoperative complications | 1 (16.7) | 0 (0) | 1 |
| Complications during laparoscopy | 0 (0) | 4 (66.7) | 0.061 |
| Postoperative adhesions (liver) | 6 (100) | 6 (100) | — |
| Postoperative adhesions (spleen) | 2 (33.3) | 2 (33.3) | 1 |
| Pathological findings—ascites | 1 (16.7) | 2 (33.3) | 1 |
| Pathological findings—abscess | 0 (0) | 1 (16.7) | 1 |
| Pathological findings in lungs | 4 (66.7) | 2 (33.3) | 0.567 |
Data concerning thermal alteration: there were no significant differences between the groups.
| Standard device; | RONJA; |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| mean ± S.E.M. (median) | mean ± S.E.M. (median) | ||
| Thermal alteration at the resection margin (%)—right lobe | 98.33 ± 1.67 (100.00) | 98.33 ± 1.67 (100.00) | — |
| Thermal alteration at the resection margin (%)—left lobe | 100.00 (unchanging) | 95 ± 3.42 (100.00) | — |
| Maximum depth of necrosis (mm)—right lobe | 13.00 ± 1.61 (13.00) | 14.83 ± 2.20 (14.00) | 1 |
| Maximum depth of necrosis (mm)—left lobe | 13.67 ± 1.94 (14.00) | 14.00 ± 0.97 (13.50) | 1 |
| Weight of resected particle (g)—right lobe | 9.55 ± 1.37 (10.20) | 15.33 ± 2.65 (14.40) | 0.567 |
| Weight of resected particle (g)—left lobe | 11.75 ± 1.29 (11.30) | 14.75 ± 1.05 (14.25) | 0.567 |
| Maximum depth of thermal alteration (cm)—right lobe | 1.08 ± 0.08 (1.00) | 1.42 ± 0.07 (1.40) | 0.08 |
| Maximum depth of thermal alteration (cm)—left lobe | 1.08 ± 0.05 (1.00) | 1.45 ± 0.07 (1.45) | 0.08 |
Figure 7In vivo study—operating field and condition of liver tissue after semispherical excision.
Figure 8Microscopic section of liver biopsy, thermal alteration of hepatic tissue, perivasal edema, and central veins dilatation.