Impact of needle positioning on ablation success of irreversible electroporation

• Verfasst von: Mathy, René Michael [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Tinoush, Parham [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Florencia, Ricardo Daniel da [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Braun, Alexander [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Ghamarnejad, Omid [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Radeleff, Boris [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Kauczor, Hans-Ulrich [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Chang, De-Hua [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Impact of needle positioning on ablation success of irreversible electroporation
• Titelzusatz: a unicentric retrospective analysis
• Verf.angabe: René Michael Mathy, Parham Tinoush, Ricardo Daniel da Florencia, Alexander Braun, Omid Ghamarnejad, Boris Radeleff, Hans-Ulrich Kauczor & De-Hua Chang
• E-Jahr: 2020
• Jahr: 14 December 2020
• Umfang: 10 S.
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 25.01.2021
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Scientific reports
• Ort Quelle: [London] : Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature, 2011
• Jahr Quelle: 2020
• Band/Heft Quelle: 10(2020) Artikel-Nummer 21902, 10 Seiten
• ISSN Quelle: 2045-2322
• DOI: doi:10.1038/s41598-020-78660-0
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• Sach-SW: ABLATION techniques
• Sach-SW: ELECTROPORATION
• Sach-SW: MAGNETIC resonance imaging
• Sach-SW: NEEDLE biopsy
• Sach-SW: STEREOTACTIC radiotherapy
• Sach-SW: TUMOR treatment
• Sach-SW: ULTRASHORT laser pulses
• K10plus-PPN: 1745571965
• K10plus-PPN:
  Universitätsbibliothek
• Lokale URL UB: Zum Volltext

Abstract

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is an ablation procedure in which cell death is induced by ultrashort electrical pulses. In this unicentric retrospective study we investigated the influence of needle positioning on ablation success. 15 IREs with residual tumor after ablation, detected in the first follow-up MRI, were included, and compared with 30 successful ablations. Evaluation of needle geometry revealed significantly higher values for needle divergence (NDiv, 7.0° vs. 3.7°, p = 0.02), tumor-center-to-ablation-center distance (TACD, 11.6 vs. 3.2 mm, p < 0.001), tumor-to-needle distance (4.7 vs. 1.9 mm, p = 0.04), and tumor diameter per needle (7.5 vs. 5.9 mm/needle, p = 0.01) in patients with residual tumor. The average number of needles used was higher in the group without residual tumor after ablation (3.1 vs. 2.4, p = 0.04). In many cases with residual tumor, needle depth was too short (2.1 vs. 6.8 mm tumor overlap beyond the most proximal needle tip, p < 0.01). The use of a stereotactic navigation system in 10 cases resulted in a lower NDiv value (2.1° vs. 5.6°, p < 0.01). Thus, correct needle placement seems to be a crucial factor for success and the assistance of a stereotactic navigation system might be helpful. As most important geometrical parameter TACD could be identified. Main reasons for high TACD were insufficient needle depth and a lesion location out of the needle plane.