Key result
Only Boston Scientific and Celon RFA systems exceed 5 cm ablation targets.
Why the study?
Validation of actually achieved macroscopic ablation volumes relative to calculated target volumes for different RFA systems at 3 cm and 5 cm targets in ex vivo bovine liver was needed.
Different radiofrequency ablation systems show significant variability in achieving target ablation volumes, particularly at larger target sizes like 5 cm.
RFA system variability at larger targets warrants caution in device selection; animal data leave open clinical translation.
PURPOSE: We aimed to validate actually achieved macroscopic ablation volumes in relation to calculated target volumes using four different radiofrequency ablation (RFA) systems operated with default settings and protocols for 3 cm and 5 cm target volumes in ex vivo bovine liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four cuboid liver specimens were ablated with four commercially available RFA systems (Radionics Cool-tip, AngioDynamic 1500X, Boston Scientific RF 3000, Celon CelonPower LAB): 16 specimens for each system; eight for 3 cm, and eight for 5 cm. Ablation diameters were measured, volumes were calculated, and RFA times were recorded. RESULTS: For the 3 cm target ablation volume, all tested RFA systems exceeded the mathematically calculated volume of 14.14 cm3. For the 3 cm target ablation volume, mean ablation volume and mean ablation time for each RFA system were as follows: 28.5 ± 6.5 cm3, 12.0 ± 0.0 min for Radionics Cool-tip; 17.1 ± 4.9 cm3, 9.36 ± 0.63 min for AngioDynamic 1500X; 29.7 ± 11.7 cm3, 4.60 ± 0.50 min for Boston Scientific RF 3000; and 28.8 ± 7.0 cm3, 20.85 ± 0.86 min for Celon CelonPower LAB. For the 5 cm target ablation volume, Radionics Cool-tip (48.3 ± 9.9 cm3, 12.0 ± 0.0 min) and AngioDynamic 1500X (39.4 ± 16.2 cm3, 19.59 ± 1.13 min) did not reach the mathematically calculated target ablation volume (65.45 cm3), whereas Boston Scientific RF 3000 (71.8 ± 14.5 cm3, 9.15 ± 2.93 min) and Celon CelonPower LAB (93.9 ± 28.1 cm3, 40.21 ± 1.78 min) exceeded it. CONCLUSION: While all systems reached the 3 cm target ablation volume, results were variable for the 5 cm target ablation volume. Only Boston Scientific RF 3000 and Celon CelonPower LAB created volumes above the target, whereas Radionics Cool-tip and AngioDynamic 1500X remained below the target volume. For the 3 cm target ablation volume, AngioDynamic 1500X with 21% deviation was closest to the target volume. For the 5 cm target volume Boston Scientific RF 3000 with 10% deviation was closest.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rathke et al. (2014) studied Ex vivo bovine liver (n=64). Four radiofrequency ablation systems (Radionics Cool-tip, AngioDynamic 1500X, Boston Scientific RF 3000, Celon CelonPower LAB) vs. Mathematically calculated target volumes was evaluated on Achieved macroscopic ablation volumes in relation to calculated target volumes. All four RFA systems reached the 3 cm target ablation volume, but for the 5 cm target, only Boston Scientific RF 3000 and Celon CelonPower LAB exceeded the target volume.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: