Literature DB >> 30806603

Complications of Percutaneous Bone Tumor Cryoablation: A 10-year Experience.

Pierre Auloge1, Roberto L Cazzato1, Chloé Rousseau1, Jean Caudrelier1, Guillaume Koch1, Pramod Rao1, Jeanie Betsy Chiang1, Julien Garnon1, Afshin Gangi1.   

Abstract

Background Percutaneous cryoablation has been shown to be effective in the management of painful bone tumors. However, knowledge of the complication rate and risk factors for complication is currently lacking. Purpose To report the complication rate and associated risk factors for bone tumor cryoablation. Materials and Methods This retrospective study reviewed complications in 239 consecutive patients (131 men and 108 women; median age, 64 years; age range, 6-86 years) who underwent cryoablation of 320 primary or metastatic bone tumors between January 2008 and November 2017. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events was used to categorize complications as major (grade 3-4) or minor (grade 1-2). Multivariable analysis was performed for variables with P values less than .20, including age, tumor location, adjacent critical structures, number of cryoprobes, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS). Results Among the 320 tumors, the total complication rate was 9.1% (29 of 320; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6%, 12.2%). The major complication rate was 2.5% (eight of 320; 95% CI: 0.8%, 4.2%), with secondary fracture the most frequent complication (1.2% [four of 320]; mean delay, 71 days); cryoablation site infection, tumor seeding, bleeding, and severe hypotension were each observed in 0.3% (one of 320) of procedures. Minor complications included postprocedural pain (2.2% [seven of 320]), peripheral neuropathy (0.9% [three of 320]), and temporary paresthesia (0.9% [three of 320]). For all complications, associated risk factors included ECOG-PS greater than 2 (odds ratio [OR], 3.1 [95% CI: 3, 7.6]; P = .01), long-bone cryoablation (OR, 17.8 [95% CI: 2.3, 136.3]; P = .01), and use of more than three cryoprobes (OR, 2.5 [95% CI: 1.0, 6.0]; P = .04); for major complications, associated risk factors included age greater than 70 years (OR, 7.1 [95% CI: 1.6, 31.7]; P = .01) and use of more than three cryoprobes (OR, 23.6 [95% CI: 2.8, 199.0]; P = .01). Conclusion Bone tumor cryoablation is safe, with a 2.5% rate of major complications, most commonly secondary fracture (1.2%). Major complications are associated with age greater than 70 years and use of more than three cryoprobes. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Jennings in this issue.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 30806603     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019181262

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  10 in total

Review 1.  Interventional Cryoneurolysis: What Is the Same, What Is Different, What Is New?

Authors:  Ross W Bittman; Keywan Behbahani; Felix Gonzalez; J David Prologo
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 1.513

2.  Cryoablation for Palliation of Painful Bone Metastases: The MOTION Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Jack W Jennings; J David Prologo; Julien Garnon; Afshin Gangi; Xavier Buy; Jean Palussière; A Nicholas Kurup; Matthew Callstrom; Scott Genshaft; Fereidoun Abtin; Ambrose J Huang; Jason Iannuccilli; Frank Pilleul; Charles Mastier; Peter J Littrup; Thierry de Baère; Frédéric Deschamps
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2021-02-12

Review 3.  Interventional Palliation of Painful Extraspinal Musculoskeletal Metastases.

Authors:  Anderanik Tomasian; Jack W Jennings
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 1.780

Review 4.  Minimally Invasive Interventional Procedures for Metastatic Bone Disease: A Comprehensive Review.

Authors:  Nicolas Papalexis; Anna Parmeggiani; Giuliano Peta; Paolo Spinnato; Marco Miceli; Giancarlo Facchini
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 3.109

Review 5.  Translational Strategies to Target Metastatic Bone Disease.

Authors:  Gabriel M Pagnotti; Trupti Trivedi; Khalid S Mohammad
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 7.666

6.  Pathological Clinical Analysis and Imaging Manifestations for Spinal Bone Tumors Based on Cement Injection.

Authors:  Jie Li; Xu Wang; Yongmin Li; Qinhui Cao; Yi Bu; Hengcong Cao; Xiaoqiang Wang
Journal:  Appl Bionics Biomech       Date:  2022-04-25       Impact factor: 1.664

Review 7.  Percutaneous Management of Cancer Pain.

Authors:  Dimitrios K Filippiadis; Lambros Tselikas; Alberto Bazzocchi; Evegnia Efthymiou; Alexis Kelekis; Steven Yevich
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 5.075

8.  European Thyroid Association and Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Minimally Invasive Treatments in Malignant Thyroid Lesions.

Authors:  Giovanni Mauri; Laszlo Hegedüs; Steven Bandula; Roberto Luigi Cazzato; Agnieszka Czarniecka; Oliver Dudeck; Laura Fugazzola; Romana Netea-Maier; Gilles Russ; Göran Wallin; Enrico Papini
Journal:  Eur Thyroid J       Date:  2021-05-25

9.  Double-parabolic-reflectors acoustic waveguides for high-power medical ultrasound.

Authors:  Kang Chen; Takasuke Irie; Takashi Iijima; Takeshi Morita
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-12-06       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  CIRSE Standards of Practice on Thermal Ablation of Bone Tumours.

Authors:  Anthony Ryan; Caoimhe Byrne; Claudio Pusceddu; Xavier Buy; Georgia Tsoumakidou; Dimitrios Filippiadis
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 2.797

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.