Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.
Int J Hyperthermia. 2013;29(1):21-9. doi: 10.3109/02656736.2012.750015.
This study aimed to compare retrospectively bipolar RF ablation with multipolar RF ablation for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma.
Between March 2009 and June 2012, 12 tumours (nine patients) treated with bipolar RF ablation (one applicator) and 14 tumours (11 patients) treated with multipolar RF ablation (two applicators) were compared systematically. Selection between bipolar RF ablation and multipolar RF ablation was operator choice considering tumour size. Study goals included differences in tumour and coagulation extent, and technical parameters (total RF energy delivery and RF ablation time per coagulation volume).
Tumour maximum diameter was significantly larger for multipolar RF ablation compared with bipolar RF ablation (27.0 mm versus 19.4 mm; p < 0.01). This difference is partially dependent on operator choice. Coagulation length, width and volume were significantly larger for multipolar RF ablation compared with bipolar RF ablation (35.0 mm versus 26.5 mm, 27.5 mm versus 23.0 mm and 14.3 cm(3) versus 8.1 cm(3); p < 0.01, p < 0.05 and p < 0.05, respectively). Coagulation circularity was not significantly different between both study groups (0.8 versus 0.8; not significant). Total RF energy delivery was significantly higher and RF ablation time per coagulation volume was significantly shorter for multipolar RF ablation compared with bipolar RF ablation (52.0 kJ versus 28.6 kJ and 2.4 min/cm(3) versus 4.1 min/cm(3); p < 0.05 and p < 0.05, respectively).
Multipolar RF ablation creates a significantly larger coagulation width, but identical coagulation shape, compared with bipolar RF ablation. Additionally, multipolar RF ablation coagulates faster according to the shorter RF ablation time per coagulation volume.
本研究旨在比较回顾性双极射频消融与多极射频消融治疗肾细胞癌的疗效。
2009 年 3 月至 2012 年 6 月,共对 12 个肿瘤(9 例患者)行双极射频消融(1 个消融器)和 14 个肿瘤(11 例患者)行多极射频消融(2 个消融器)治疗。根据肿瘤大小,由术者选择行双极射频消融或多极射频消融。研究目标包括肿瘤和凝固范围以及技术参数(总射频能量传递和每凝固体积的射频消融时间)的差异。
多极射频消融的肿瘤最大直径明显大于双极射频消融(27.0mm 比 19.4mm;p<0.01)。这种差异部分取决于术者的选择。多极射频消融的凝固长度、宽度和体积明显大于双极射频消融(35.0mm 比 26.5mm,27.5mm 比 23.0mm,14.3cm3 比 8.1cm3;p<0.01,p<0.05 和 p<0.05)。两组的凝固圆形度无显著差异(0.8 比 0.8;无显著差异)。多极射频消融的总射频能量传递明显更高,每凝固体积的射频消融时间明显更短(52.0kJ 比 28.6kJ,2.4min/cm3 比 4.1min/cm3;p<0.05 和 p<0.05)。
与双极射频消融相比,多极射频消融可产生明显更大的凝固宽度,但凝固形状相同。此外,根据每凝固体积的射频消融时间较短,多极射频消融凝固更快。