OBJECTIVE: Tissue electroporation is achieved by applying a series of electric pulses to destabilize cell membranes within the target tissue. The treatment volume is dictated by the electric field distribution, which depends on the pulse parameters and tissue type and can be readily predicted using numerical methods. These models require the relevant tissue properties to be known beforehand. This study aims to quantify electrical and thermal properties for three different tissue types relevant to current clinical electroporation. METHODS: Pancreatic, brain, and liver tissue were harvested from pigs, then treated with IRE pulses in a parallel-plate configuration. Resulting current and temperature readings were used to calculate the conductivity and its temperature dependence for each tissue type. Finally, a computational model was constructed to examine the impact of differences between tissue types. RESULTS: Baseline conductivity values (mean 0.11, 0.14, and 0.12 S/m) and temperature coefficients of conductivity (mean 2.0, 2.3, and 1.2 % per degree Celsius) were calculated for pancreas, brain, and liver, respectively. The accompanying computational models suggest field distribution and thermal damage volumes are dependent on tissue type. CONCLUSION: The three tissue types show similar electrical and thermal responses to IRE, though brain tissue exhibits the greatest differences. The results also show that tissue type plays a role in the expected ablation and thermal damage volumes. SIGNIFICANCE: The conductivity and its changes due to heating are expected to have a marked impact on the ablation volume. Incorporating these tissue properties aids in the prediction and optimization of electroporation-based therapies.
OBJECTIVE: Tissue electroporation is achieved by applying a series of electric pulses to destabilize cell membranes within the target tissue. The treatment volume is dictated by the electric field distribution, which depends on the pulse parameters and tissue type and can be readily predicted using numerical methods. These models require the relevant tissue properties to be known beforehand. This study aims to quantify electrical and thermal properties for three different tissue types relevant to current clinical electroporation. METHODS: Pancreatic, brain, and liver tissue were harvested from pigs, then treated with IRE pulses in a parallel-plate configuration. Resulting current and temperature readings were used to calculate the conductivity and its temperature dependence for each tissue type. Finally, a computational model was constructed to examine the impact of differences between tissue types. RESULTS: Baseline conductivity values (mean 0.11, 0.14, and 0.12 S/m) and temperature coefficients of conductivity (mean 2.0, 2.3, and 1.2 % per degree Celsius) were calculated for pancreas, brain, and liver, respectively. The accompanying computational models suggest field distribution and thermal damage volumes are dependent on tissue type. CONCLUSION: The three tissue types show similar electrical and thermal responses to IRE, though brain tissue exhibits the greatest differences. The results also show that tissue type plays a role in the expected ablation and thermal damage volumes. SIGNIFICANCE: The conductivity and its changes due to heating are expected to have a marked impact on the ablation volume. Incorporating these tissue properties aids in the prediction and optimization of electroporation-based therapies.
Authors: Ephrem O Olweny; Payal Kapur; Yung K Tan; Samuel K Park; Mehrad Adibi; Jeffrey A Cadeddu Journal: Urology Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Hester J Scheffer; Karin Nielsen; Marcus C de Jong; Aukje A J M van Tilborg; Jenny M Vieveen; Arthur R A Bouwman; Sybren Meijer; Cornelis van Kuijk; Petrousjka M P van den Tol; Martijn R Meijerink Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Thomas Wimmer; Govindarajan Srimathveeravalli; Narendra Gutta; Paula C Ezell; Sebastien Monette; T Peter Kingham; Majid Maybody; Jeremy C Durack; Yuman Fong; Stephen B Solomon Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Bart Geboers; Hester J Scheffer; Philip M Graybill; Alette H Ruarus; Sanne Nieuwenhuizen; Robbert S Puijk; Petrousjka M van den Tol; Rafael V Davalos; Boris Rubinsky; Tanja D de Gruijl; Damijan Miklavčič; Martijn R Meijerink Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christopher B Arena; Christopher S Szot; Paulo A Garcia; Marissa Nichole Rylander; Rafael V Davalos Journal: Biophys J Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Melvin F Lorenzo; Suyashree P Bhonsle; Christopher B Arena; Rafael V Davalos Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 4.538