Bipolar versus multipolar radiofrequency (RF) ablation for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma

• Verfasst von: Sommer, Christof-Matthias [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Lemm, Guenther [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Hohenstein, Ernst [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Stampfl, Ulrike [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Bellemann, Nadine [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Teber, Dogu [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Rassweiler, Jens [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Kauczor, Hans-Ulrich [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Radeleff, Boris [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Pereira, Philippe L. [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Bipolar versus multipolar radiofrequency (RF) ablation for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma
• Titelzusatz: Differences in technical and clinical parameters
• Verf.angabe: Christof M. Sommer, Guenther Lemm, Ernst Hohenstein, Ulrike Stampfl, Nadine Bellemann, Dogu Teber, Jens Rassweiler, Hans U. Kauczor, Boris A. Radeleff & Philippe L. Pereira
• Jahr: 2013
• Umfang: 9 S.
• Fussnoten: Published online: 11 Jan 2013 ; Gesehen am 09.02.2022
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: International journal of hyperthermia
• Ort Quelle: Abingdon : Taylor & Francis Group, 1985
• Jahr Quelle: 2013
• Band/Heft Quelle: 29(2013), 1 vom: Feb., Seite 21-29
• ISSN Quelle: 1464-5157
• DOI: doi:10.3109/02656736.2012.750015
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• Sach-SW: bipolar
• Sach-SW: CT-guided
• Sach-SW: multipolar
• Sach-SW: Radiofrequency ablation
• Sach-SW: renal cell carcinoma
• K10plus-PPN: 1789103215

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare retrospectively bipolar RF ablation with multipolar RF ablation for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma.Materials and methods: 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).Results: 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 cm3 versus 8.1 cm3; 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/cm3 versus 4.1 min/cm3; p < 0.05 and p < 0.05, respectively).Conclusions: 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.