Key result
The unbalanced monopole antenna created significantly wider (18.28 vs 13.38 mm, p<0.001) and deeper (11.87 vs 9.41 mm, p=0.016) ablation lesions in a gel phantom compared to the MRSA antenna.
Why the study?
To determine whether an irrigated unbalanced antenna can create larger ablations than a conventional microwave antenna without overheating.
Does an unbalanced monopole antenna create larger ablations than a conventional multi-ring slot array microwave antenna in a gel phantom model?
Does an unbalanced monopole antenna create larger ablations than a conventional multi-ring slot array microwave antenna in a gel phantom model?
Absolute Event Rate: 18.28% vs 13.38%
p-value: p=2.482 x 10^-5
An unbalanced monopole microwave antenna creates larger ablation lesions with improved microwave characteristics compared to a conventional multi-ring slot array antenna in phantom models.
Objective:To determine whether an irrigatedunbalanced antenna can create larger ablations than a conventional microwave antenna without overheating.Method:The microwave and ablation characteristics of a previously published multi-ring slot array (MRSA) ablation antenna, optimized for intravascular environments, were compared with a dielectric-insulated monopole antenna with no matching or balancing elements, creating the unbalanced monopole antenna. The two antennae were numerically simulated in an intravascular environment and tested inside a gel phantom for five repetitions for comparison. Each antenna assembly was900 mmlong, with a2.45 GHzablatingfrequency, with a microwave input power of60 Wfor120 svia a patient cable.Results:Gel experiments were consistent with numerical simulations, with the unbalanced monopole antenna possessing better microwave and ablative characteristics than the MRSA in a biological environment. Microwave input power to the device connector was attenuated from60 Wto40 Wdue to patient cable losses. Removing matching elements improved input impedance at the test plane (Real, 52.20±5.90 \;Ω$vs. 74.22$±43.25 \;Ω, p = 0.05648; Imaginary, −23.50±2.63 \;Ω$vs. 14.92$±51.10 \;Ω, p = 0.1333) and the return loss (−12.79±0.45 dB$vs. 6.51$±0.25 dB, p =2.521 × 10⁻⁷). The unbalanced monopole antenna created wide (18.28±0.57 mm$vs. 13.38$±0.60 mm, p =2.482 × 10⁻⁵) and deeper (11.87±0.88 mm$vs. 9.41$±0.98 mm, p =1.616 × 10⁻²) ablation lesions than the MRSA.Clinical Impact:Removing elements from an MRSA created an unbalanced monopole antenna that creates larger ablation lesions with improved microwave characteristics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2023) studied Cardiovascular ablation. Unbalanced monopole antenna vs. Multi-ring slot array (MRSA) ablation antenna was evaluated on Ablation lesion width (mm) (p=2.482 x 10^-5). The unbalanced monopole antenna created significantly wider (18.28 vs 13.38 mm, p<0.001) and deeper (11.87 vs 9.41 mm, p=0.016) ablation lesions in a gel phantom compared to the MRSA antenna.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: