Thomas J Vogl1, Lajos M Basten1, Nour-Eldin A Nour-Eldin1,2, Benjamin Kaltenbach1, Boris Bodelle1, Julian L Wichmann1, Hanns Ackermann3, Nagy N N Naguib1,4. 1. a Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology , Frankfurt-University Hospital , Frankfurt am Main , Germany. 2. b Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology , Faculty of Medicine Cairo University , Egypt. 3. c Department of Biomedical Statistics , Frankfurt-University , Frankfurt am Main , Germany. 4. d Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology , Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University , Alexandria , Egypt.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical performance of a new microwave ablation (MWA) system with enabled constant spatial energy control (ECSEC) to achieve spherical ablation zones in the treatment of liver malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 56 hepatic tumours in 48 patients (23 men, 25 women; mean age: 59.6 years) were treated using a new high-frequency MWA-system with ECSEC. Parameters evaluated were technical success, technical efficacy, tumour diameter, tumour and ablation volume, complication rate, 90-day mortality, local tumour progression (LTP) at the 12-month follow-up, ablative margin and ablation zone sphericity. These parameters were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test with the same parameters collected retrospectively from cohorts of patients treated with conventional high-frequency (HF) MWA (n = 20) or low-frequency (LF) MWA (n = 20). RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in all interventions. The technical efficacy was 100% (ECSEC) vs. 100% (LF-MWA) vs. 95% (HF-MWA). There were no intra-procedural deaths or major complications. Minor complications occurred in 3.57% (2/56), 0% (0/20) and 0% (0/20) of the patients, respectively. The one-year mortality rate was 16.1% (9/56), 15% (3/20) and 10% (2/20), respectively. The LTP was 3.57% (2/56), 5% (1/20) and 5% (1/20), respectively. The median deviation from ideal sphericity (1.0) was 0.135 (ECSEC) vs. 0.344 (LF-MWA) vs. 0.314 (HF-MWA) (p < 0.001). The absolute minimal ablative margin was 8.1 vs. 2.3 vs. 3.1 mm (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Microwave ablation of liver malignancies is a safe and efficient treatment independent of the system used. Hepatic MWA with ECSEC achieves significantly more spherical ablation zones and higher minimal ablative margins.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical performance of a new microwave ablation (MWA) system with enabled constant spatial energy control (ECSEC) to achieve spherical ablation zones in the treatment of liver malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 56 hepatic tumours in 48 patients (23 men, 25 women; mean age: 59.6 years) were treated using a new high-frequency MWA-system with ECSEC. Parameters evaluated were technical success, technical efficacy, tumour diameter, tumour and ablation volume, complication rate, 90-day mortality, local tumour progression (LTP) at the 12-month follow-up, ablative margin and ablation zone sphericity. These parameters were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test with the same parameters collected retrospectively from cohorts of patients treated with conventional high-frequency (HF) MWA (n = 20) or low-frequency (LF) MWA (n = 20). RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in all interventions. The technical efficacy was 100% (ECSEC) vs. 100% (LF-MWA) vs. 95% (HF-MWA). There were no intra-procedural deaths or major complications. Minor complications occurred in 3.57% (2/56), 0% (0/20) and 0% (0/20) of the patients, respectively. The one-year mortality rate was 16.1% (9/56), 15% (3/20) and 10% (2/20), respectively. The LTP was 3.57% (2/56), 5% (1/20) and 5% (1/20), respectively. The median deviation from ideal sphericity (1.0) was 0.135 (ECSEC) vs. 0.344 (LF-MWA) vs. 0.314 (HF-MWA) (p < 0.001). The absolute minimal ablative margin was 8.1 vs. 2.3 vs. 3.1 mm (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Microwave ablation of liver malignancies is a safe and efficient treatment independent of the system used. Hepatic MWA with ECSEC achieves significantly more spherical ablation zones and higher minimal ablative margins.
Authors: Elena A Kaye; Francois H Cornelis; Elena N Petre; Neelam Tyagi; Waleed Shady; Weiji Shi; Zhigang Zhang; Stephen B Solomon; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Jeremy C Durack Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: P Hendriks; W E M Berkhout; C I Kaanen; J H Sluijter; I J Visser; J J van den Dobbelsteen; L F de Geus-Oei; A G Webb; M C Burgmans Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Aleksandar Radosevic; Rita Quesada; Clara Serlavos; Juan Sánchez; Ander Zugazaga; Ana Sierra; Susana Coll; Marcos Busto; Guadalupe Aguilar; Daniel Flores; Javier Arce; José María Maiques; Montserrat Garcia-Retortillo; José Antonio Carrion; Laura Visa; María Villamonte; Eva Pueyo; Enrique Berjano; Macarena Trujillo; Patricia Sánchez-Velázquez; Luís Grande; Fernando Burdio Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Thomas J Vogl; Yousef Jaraysa; Simon S Martin; Tatjana Gruber-Rouh; Rock H Savage; Nour-Eldin A Nour-Eldin; Amela Mehmedovic Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2022-01-28
Authors: Francesco De Cobelli; Marco Calandri; Angelo Della Corte; Roberta Sirovich; Carlo Gazzera; Paolo Della Vigna; Guido Bonomo; Gianluca Maria Varano; Daniele Maiettini; Giovanni Mauri; Nicola Camisassi; Stephanie Steidler; Francesca Ratti; Simone Gusmini; Monica Ronzoni; Luca Aldrighetti; Bruno C Odisio; Patrizia Racca; Paolo Fonio; Andrea Veltri; Franco Orsi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Antonia Grimm; Moritz Winkelmann; Jakob Weiß; Georg Gohla; Gunnar Blumenstock; Konstantin Nikolaou; Stephan Clasen; Rüdiger Hoffmann Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2019-09-23