Open Access

Comparison of four endoluminal radiofrequency ablation devices and four power generators in an ex vivo bovine liver model

  • Authors:
    • Stephan Rheinheimer
    • Anna Jacobsen
    • Philipp Mayer
    • Hans-Ulrich Kauczor
    • Andreas Horst Mahnken
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: September 14, 2021     https://doi.org/10.3892/wasj.2021.128
  • Article Number: 57
  • Copyright: © Rheinheimer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

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


Abstract

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.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

November-December 2021
Volume 3 Issue 6

Print ISSN: 2632-2900
Online ISSN:2632-2919

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Rheinheimer S, Jacobsen A, Mayer P, Kauczor H and Mahnken AH: Comparison of four endoluminal radiofrequency ablation devices and four power generators in an <em>ex vivo</em> bovine liver model. World Acad Sci J 3: 57, 2021
APA
Rheinheimer, S., Jacobsen, A., Mayer, P., Kauczor, H., & Mahnken, A.H. (2021). Comparison of four endoluminal radiofrequency ablation devices and four power generators in an <em>ex vivo</em> bovine liver model. World Academy of Sciences Journal, 3, 57. https://doi.org/10.3892/wasj.2021.128
MLA
Rheinheimer, S., Jacobsen, A., Mayer, P., Kauczor, H., Mahnken, A. H."Comparison of four endoluminal radiofrequency ablation devices and four power generators in an <em>ex vivo</em> bovine liver model". World Academy of Sciences Journal 3.6 (2021): 57.
Chicago
Rheinheimer, S., Jacobsen, A., Mayer, P., Kauczor, H., Mahnken, A. H."Comparison of four endoluminal radiofrequency ablation devices and four power generators in an <em>ex vivo</em> bovine liver model". World Academy of Sciences Journal 3, no. 6 (2021): 57. https://doi.org/10.3892/wasj.2021.128