PURPOSE: To create and validate a planning tool for multiple-probe cryoablation, using simulations of ice ball size and shape for various ablation probe configurations, ablation times, and types of tissue ablated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ice ball size and shape was simulated using the Pennes bioheat equation. Five thousand six hundred and seventy different cryoablation procedures were simulated, using 1-6 cryoablation probes and 1-2 cm spacing between probes. The resulting ice ball was measured along three perpendicular axes and recorded in a database. Simulated ice ball sizes were compared to gel experiments (26 measurements) and clinical cryoablation cases (42 measurements). The clinical cryoablation measurements were obtained from a HIPAA-compliant retrospective review of kidney and liver cryoablation procedures between January 2015 and February 2016. Finally, we created a web-based cryoablation planning tool, which uses the cryoablation simulation database to look up the probe spacing and ablation time that produces the desired ice ball shape and dimensions. RESULTS: Average absolute error between the simulated and experimentally measured ice balls was 1 mm in gel experiments and 4 mm in clinical cryoablation cases. The simulations accurately predicted the degree of synergy in multiple-probe ablations. The cryoablation simulation database covers a wide range of ice ball sizes and shapes up to 9.8 cm. CONCLUSION: Cryoablation simulations accurately predict the ice ball size in multiple-probe ablations. The cryoablation database can be used to plan ablation procedures: given the desired ice ball size and shape, it will find the number and type of probes, probe configuration and spacing, and ablation time required.
PURPOSE: To create and validate a planning tool for multiple-probe cryoablation, using simulations of ice ball size and shape for various ablation probe configurations, ablation times, and types of tissue ablated. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Ice ball size and shape was simulated using the Pennes bioheat equation. Five thousand six hundred and seventy different cryoablation procedures were simulated, using 1-6 cryoablation probes and 1-2 cm spacing between probes. The resulting ice ball was measured along three perpendicular axes and recorded in a database. Simulated ice ball sizes were compared to gel experiments (26 measurements) and clinical cryoablation cases (42 measurements). The clinical cryoablation measurements were obtained from a HIPAA-compliant retrospective review of kidney and liver cryoablation procedures between January 2015 and February 2016. Finally, we created a web-based cryoablation planning tool, which uses the cryoablation simulation database to look up the probe spacing and ablation time that produces the desired ice ball shape and dimensions. RESULTS: Average absolute error between the simulated and experimentally measured ice balls was 1 mm in gel experiments and 4 mm in clinical cryoablation cases. The simulations accurately predicted the degree of synergy in multiple-probe ablations. The cryoablation simulation database covers a wide range of ice ball sizes and shapes up to 9.8 cm. CONCLUSION: Cryoablation simulations accurately predict the ice ball size in multiple-probe ablations. The cryoablation database can be used to plan ablation procedures: given the desired ice ball size and shape, it will find the number and type of probes, probe configuration and spacing, and ablation time required.
Authors: Grant D Schmit; Thomas D Atwell; Matthew R Callstrom; Michael A Farrell; Bradley C Leibovich; David E Patterson; George K Chow; Michael L Blute; J William Charboneau Journal: J Endourol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Jennifer L Young; David W McCormick; Surrendra B Kolla; Petros G Sountoulides; Oskar G Kaufmann; Cervando G Ortiz-Vanderdys; Victor B Huynh; Adam G Kaplan; Nick S Jain; Donald L Pick; Lorena A Andrade; Kathryn E Osann; Elspeth M McDougall; Ralph V Clayman Journal: Urology Date: 2011-12-20 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Matthew R Callstrom; Damian E Dupuy; Stephen B Solomon; Robert A Beres; Peter J Littrup; Kirkland W Davis; Ricardo Paz-Fumagalli; Cheryl Hoffman; Thomas D Atwell; J William Charboneau; Grant D Schmit; Matthew P Goetz; Joseph Rubin; Kathy J Brown; Paul J Novotny; Jeff A Sloan Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Thierry de Baere; Lambros Tselikas; David Woodrum; Fereidoun Abtin; Peter Littrup; Frederic Deschamps; Robert Suh; Hussein D Aoun; Matthew Callstrom Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: J Louis Hinshaw; Meghan G Lubner; Timothy J Ziemlewicz; Fred T Lee; Christopher L Brace Journal: Radiographics Date: 2014 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Rache M Simmons; Karla V Ballman; Charles Cox; Ned Carp; Jennifer Sabol; Rosa F Hwang; Deanna Attai; Michael Sabel; David Nathanson; Andrew Kenler; Linsey Gold; Cary Kaufman; Linda Han; Aaron Bleznak; J Stanley Smith; Dennis Holmes; Bruno Fornage; Carisa Le-Petross; Syed Hoda; Linda McCall; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Taimur T Shah; Uri Arbel; Sonja Foss; Andrew Zachman; Simon Rodney; Hashim U Ahmed; Manit Arya Journal: Urology Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Tim J van Oostenbrugge; Jan Heidkamp; Michael Moche; Phil Weir; Panchatcharam Mariappan; Ronan Flanigan; Mika Pollari; Stephen Payne; Marina Kolesnik; Sjoerd F M Jenniskens; Jurgen J Fütterer Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 2.740