Background/Objectives: Accurate intraoperative tumour localisation remains challenging in minimally invasive colorectal surgery, where conventional tattooing methods suffer from marker migration, tissue diffusion, and potential allergic reactions. Radio frequency identification (RFID) technology offers a promising alternative through implantable passive transponders detectable via electromagnetic coupling, eliminating ionising radiation exposure. Methods: This preclinical feasibility study evaluated three RFID frequency bands for surgical tumour marking: 134 kHz (low frequency, LF), 13.56 MHz (high frequency, HF), and 868 MHz (ultra-high frequency, UHF). Finite element electromagnetic simulations characterised antenna field distributions, while experimental validation employed glass-encapsulated transponders in air and tissue-simulating saline (0.9% NaCl, σ ≈ 1.5 S/m). Detection ranges were measured across 28 angular configurations with expanded measurement uncertainty (k = 2) ranging from ±0.9 to ±3.2 mm. Results: Maximum detection distances in air were 25.0 ± 0.9 mm (LF), 23.0 ± 1.1 mm (HF), and 68.0 ± 2.3 mm (UHF). In saline, ranges decreased to 22.5 ± 1.0 mm, 20.7 ± 1.2 mm, and 18.0 ± 1.4 mm, respectively, demonstrating tissue attenuation of 10% at LF/HF vs. 74% at UHF. Angular characterisation revealed 64–70% range reduction at orthogonal orientation for LF/HF systems. Computational–experimental correlation yielded r2 = 0.975 across 154 paired observations. Conclusions: The 13.56 MHz HF band emerges as the optimal candidate for clinical translation, offering adequate tissue penetration (20.7 mm), superior antenna miniaturisation potential (5 mm diameter), established biocompatibility pathways, and mature near-field communication ecosystem support. Future development should address angular sensitivity through multi-axis antenna configurations and validation in anatomically realistic tissue phantoms. This study establishes the electromagnetic evidence base for clinical system development; translation to clinical practice requires sequential preclinical and clinical evaluation.
Mocan et al. (2026) studied this question.