Display options
Cite
Koda M, Tokunaga S, Matono T, et al. Comparison between different thickness umbrella-shaped expandable radiofrequency electrodes (SuperSlim and CoAccess): Experimental and clinical study. Exp Ther Med. 2011;2(6):1215-1220doi: 10.3892/etm.2011.347.
Koda, M., Tokunaga, S., Matono, T., Sugihara, T., Nagahara, T., & Murawaki, Y. (2011). Comparison between different thickness umbrella-shaped expandable radiofrequency electrodes (SuperSlim and CoAccess): Experimental and clinical study. Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2(6), 1215-1220. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2011.347
Koda, Masahiko, et al. "Comparison between different thickness umbrella-shaped expandable radiofrequency electrodes (SuperSlim and CoAccess): Experimental and clinical study." Experimental and therapeutic medicine vol. 2,6 (2011): 1215-1220. doi: https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2011.347
Koda M, Tokunaga S, Matono T, Sugihara T, Nagahara T, Murawaki Y. Comparison between different thickness umbrella-shaped expandable radiofrequency electrodes (SuperSlim and CoAccess): Experimental and clinical study. Exp Ther Med. 2011 Nov;2(6):1215-1220. doi: 10.3892/etm.2011.347. Epub 2011 Sep 01. PMID: 22977647; PMCID: PMC3440824.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Exp Ther Med. 2011 Nov;2(6):1215-1220. doi: 10.3892/etm.2011.347. Epub 2011 Sep 01.

Comparison between different thickness umbrella-shaped expandable radiofrequency electrodes (SuperSlim and CoAccess): Experimental and clinical study.

Experimental and therapeutic medicine

Masahiko Koda, Shiho Tokunaga, Tomomitsu Matono, Takaaki Sugihara, Takakazu Nagahara, Yoshikazu Murawaki

Affiliations

  1. Second Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8504, Japan.

PMID: 22977647 PMCID: PMC3440824 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2011.347

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to compare the size and configuration of the ablation zones created by SuperSlim and CoAccess electrodes, using various ablation algorithms in ex vivo bovine liver and in clinical cases. In the experimental study, we ablated explanted bovine liver using 2 types of electrodes and 4 ablation algorithms (combinations of incremental power supply, stepwise expansion and additional low-power ablation) and evaluated the ablation area and time. In the clinical study, we compared the ablation volume and the shape of the ablation zone between both electrodes in 23 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cases with the best algorithm (incremental power supply, stepwise expansion and additional low-power ablation) as derived from the experimental study. In the experimental study, the ablation area and time by the CoAccess electrode were significantly greater compared to those by the SuperSlim electrode for the single-step (algorithm 1, p=0.0209 and 0.0325, respectively) and stepwise expansion algorithms (algorithm 2, p=0.0002 and <0.0001, respectively; algorithm 3, p= 0.006 and 0.0407, respectively). However, differences were not significant for the additional low-power ablation algorithm. In the clinical study, the ablation volume and time in the CoAccess group were significantly larger and longer, respectively, compared to those in the SuperSlim group (p=0.0242 and 0.009, respectively). Round ablation zones were acquired in 91.7% of the CoAccess group, while irregular ablation zones were obtained in 45.5% of the SuperSlim group (p=0.0428). In conclusion, the CoAccess electrode achieves larger and more uniform ablation zones compared with the SuperSlim electrode, though it requires longer ablation times in experimental and clinical studies.

References

  1. Korean J Radiol. 2003 Apr-Jun;4(2):117-23 - PubMed
  2. Eur Radiol. 2003 Oct;13(10):2346-52 - PubMed
  3. Oncology. 2002;63(2):139-44 - PubMed
  4. Eur Radiol. 2006 Mar;16(3):661-9 - PubMed
  5. Ann Surg. 2004 Jul;240(1):102-7 - PubMed
  6. Radiology. 2000 Oct;217(1):119-26 - PubMed
  7. Radiology. 1998 Dec;209(3):761-7 - PubMed
  8. Ann Surg. 2000 Sep;232(3):381-91 - PubMed
  9. Acad Radiol. 1995 May;2(5):399-404 - PubMed
  10. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Jan;178(1):47-51 - PubMed
  11. Radiographics. 2010 Jul-Aug;30(4):1107-22 - PubMed
  12. Eur Radiol. 2010 Apr;20(4):877-85 - PubMed
  13. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002 Dec;13(12):1225-32 - PubMed
  14. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009 Jan;20(1):3-8 - PubMed
  15. Radiology. 2010 Feb;254(2):430-40 - PubMed
  16. Hepatology. 2008 Jan;47(1):82-9 - PubMed
  17. Ann Surg. 1998 Apr;227(4):559-65 - PubMed
  18. Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb;24(2):254-65 - PubMed
  19. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Feb;188(2):480-8 - PubMed
  20. Radiology. 2007 Mar;242(3):743-50 - PubMed
  21. Surg Endosc. 2004 Mar;18(3):390-6 - PubMed
  22. Liver Int. 2005 Jun;25(3):542-7 - PubMed

Publication Types