Comparison between different thickness umbrella-shaped expandable radiofrequency electrodes (SuperSlim and CoAccess): Experimental and clinical study

Koda,Masahiko; Tokunaga,Shiho; Matono,Tomomitsu; Sugihara,Takaaki; Nagahara,Takakazu; Murawaki,Yoshikazu

doi:10.3892/etm.2011.347

Comparison between different thickness umbrella-shaped expandable radiofrequency electrodes (SuperSlim and CoAccess): Experimental and clinical study

Authors:
- Masahiko Koda
- Shiho Tokunaga
- Tomomitsu Matono
- Takaaki Sugihara
- Takakazu Nagahara
- Yoshikazu Murawaki
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Second Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8504, Japan
Published online on: September 1, 2011 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2011.347
Pages: 1215-1220

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to compare the size and configuration of the ablation zones created by SuperSlim and CoAccess electrodes, using various ablation algorithms in ex vivo bovine liver and in clinical cases. In the experimental study, we ablated explanted bovine liver using 2 types of electrodes and 4 ablation algorithms (combinations of incremental power supply, stepwise expansion and additional low-power ablation) and evaluated the ablation area and time. In the clinical study, we compared the ablation volume and the shape of the ablation zone between both electrodes in 23 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cases with the best algorithm (incremental power supply, stepwise expansion and additional low-power ablation) as derived from the experimental study. In the experimental study, the ablation area and time by the CoAccess electrode were significantly greater compared to those by the SuperSlim electrode for the single-step (algorithm 1, p=0.0209 and 0.0325, respectively) and stepwise expansion algorithms (algorithm 2, p=0.0002 and <0.0001, respectively; algorithm 3, p=0.006 and 0.0407, respectively). However, differences were not significant for the additional low-power ablation algorithm. In the clinical study, the ablation volume and time in the CoAccess group were significantly larger and longer, respectively, compared to those in the SuperSlim group (p=0.0242 and 0.009, respectively). Round ablation zones were acquired in 91.7% of the CoAccess group, while irregular ablation zones were obtained in 45.5% of the SuperSlim group (p=0.0428). In conclusion, the CoAccess electrode achieves larger and more uniform ablation zones compared with the SuperSlim electrode, though it requires longer ablation times in experimental and clinical studies.

View Figures

View References

1	Vivarelli M, Guglielmi A, Ruzzenente A, et al: Surgical resection versus percutaneous radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhotic liver. Ann Surg. 240:102–107. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Curley SA, Izzo F, Ellis LM, Vauthey JN and Vallone P: Radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular cancer in 110 patients with cirrhosis. Ann Surg. 232:381–391. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Gervais DA, Goldberg SN, Brown DB, Soulen MC, Millward SF and Rajan DK: Society of interventional radiology position statement on percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of liver tumors. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 20:3–8. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar
4	Livraghi T, Meloni F, Di Stasi M, et al: Sustained complete response and complications rates after radiofrequency ablation of very early hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: is resection still the treatment of choice? Hepatology. 47:82–89. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
5	Bhardwaj N, Strickland AD, Ahmad F, Dennison AR and Lloyd DM: Liver ablation techniques: a review. Surg Endosc. 24:254–265. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Nakazawa T, Kokubu S, Shibuya A, et al: Radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation between local tumor progression after ablation and ablative margin. AJR. 188:480–488. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar
7	Liu CH, Arellano RS, Uppot RN, Samir AE, Gervais DA and Mueller PR: Radiofrequency ablation of hepatic tumours: effect of post-ablation margin on local tumour progression. Eur Radiol. 20:879–885. 2009.PubMed/NCBI
8	Denys AL, De Baere T, Kuoch V, et al: Radio-frequency tissue ablation of the liver: in vivo and ex vivo experiments with four different systems. Eur Radiol. 13:2346–2352. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Mendiratta-Lala M, Brook OR, Midkiff BD, et al: Quality initiatives: strategies for anticipating and reducing complications and treatment failures in hepatic radiofrequency ablation. Radiographics. 30:1107–1122. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Kobayashi M, Ikeda K, Someya T, et al: Stepwise hook extension technique for radiofrequency ablation therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncology. 63:139–144. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Choi D, Kim SK, Lim HK, et al: Overlapping ablation using a coaxial radiofrequency electrode and multiple cannulae system: experimental study in ex-vivo bovine liver. Korean J Radiol. 4:117–123. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Goldberg SN, Gazelle GS, Dawson SL, Rittman WJ, Mueller PR and Rosenthal DI: Tissue ablation with radiofrequency: effect of probe size, gauge, duration, and temparature on lesion volume. Acad Radiol. 2:399–404. 1995.PubMed/NCBI
13	Solazzo SA, Ahmed M, Liu Z, Hines-Peralta AU and Goldberg SN: High-power generator for radiofrequency ablation: larger electrodes and pulsing algorithms in bovine ex vivo and porcine in vivo settings. Radiology. 242:743–750. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Appelbaum L, Sosna J, Pearson R, et al: Algorithm optimization for multitined radiofrequency ablation: comparative study in ex vivo and in vivo bovine liver. Radiology. 254:430–440. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Berber E, Herceg NL, Casto KJ and Siperstein AE: Laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of hepatic tumors. Surg Endosc. 8:390–396. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar
16	Kotoh K, Nakamuta M, Morizono S, et al: A multi-step, incremental expansion method for radio frequency ablation: potimization of the procedure to prevent increases in intra-tumor pressure and to reduce the ablation time. Liver Int. 25:542–547. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Patterson EJ, Scudamore CH, Owen DA, Nagy AG and Buczkowski AK: Radiofrequency ablation of porcine liver in vivo: effects of blood flow and treatment time on lesion size. Ann Surg. 227:559–565. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Goldberg SN, Hahn PF, Halpern EF, Fogle RM and Gazelle GS: Radio-frequency tissue ablation: effect of pharmacologic modulation of blood flow on coagulation diameter. Radiology. 209:761–767. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Lu DS, Raman SS, Vodopich DJ, Wang M, Sayre J and Lassman C: Effect of vessel size on creation of hepatic radiofrequency lesions in pigs: assessment of the ‘heat sink’ effect. Am J Roentgenol. 178:47–51. 2002.PubMed/NCBI
20	Rossi S, Garbagnati F, Lencioni R, et al: Percutaneous radio-frequency thermal ablation of nonresectable hepatocellular carcinoma after occlusion of tumor blood supply. Radiology. 217:119–126. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar
21	Yamakado K, Nakatsuka A, Ohmori S, et al: Radiofrequency ablation combined with chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma: treatment response based on tumor size and morphology. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 13:1225–1232. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Veltri A, Moretto P, Doriguzzi A, Pagano E, Carrara G and Gandini G: Radiofrequency thermal ablation (RFA) after transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as a combined therapy for unresectable non-early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Eur Radiol. 16:661–669. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar