Comparison of four endoluminal radiofrequency ablation devices and four power generators in an ex vivo bovine liver model
- Stephan Rheinheimer
- Anna Jacobsen
- Philipp Mayer
- Hans-Ulrich Kauczor
- Andreas Horst Mahnken
Affiliations: Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, D‑69120 Heidelberg, Germany, Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Schleswig‑Holstein, D‑23538 Lübeck, Germany, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Philipps University of Marburg, D‑35043 Marburg, Germany
- Published online on: September 14, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3892/wasj.2021.128
Copyright: © Rheinheimer
et al. This is an open access article distributed under the
terms of Creative
Commons Attribution License.
Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
This article is mentioned in:
The aim of the present study was to investigate the ex vivo results of four different endoluminal bipolar radiofrequency ablation (RFA) probes at different energy settings and using four different power generators. Ex vivo RFA was performed on bovine liver using four different bipolar RFA probes: i) Habib™ EndoHPB (EMcision); ii) Habib™ VesOpen (EMcision); iii) Celon ProCurve micro 300‑C09 (Olympus Corporation); and iv) Celon ProCurve 1200 S15 (Olympus Corporation). The following generators were also used: Erbe Vio 300D, KLS Martin Maxium, Olympus CelonPOWER and Boston RF3000. Overall, 430 ablations were carried out. The results revealed significant differences in the size of the achieved lesions and the duration of ablation (P<0.05) between the four different ablation devices. The maximum lesion diameters achieved with the devises were as follows: HabibTM EndoHPB, 13 watts (W; mean ± standard deviation, 10.3±1.8 mm); Habib™ VesOpen, 12 W (11.3±0.6); Celon ProCurve micro, 2 W (7.9±2.2); and Celon ProCurve 1200, 10 W (9.2±1.1). The maximum lesion diameters induced by the various generators differed significantly. On the whole, the present study demonstrates that lesion size and ideal power settings vary between different endoluminal ablation devices and generators. The combination of the probe and generator should not be varied in clinical practice to ensure reliable results.