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

Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2011 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 3193

Study snapshot

PublicationExperimental and therapeutic medicine · 2011

Study typeother

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

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.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother

Effect directionunclear

PopulationClinical cases with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)

Sample size23

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In ex vivo bovine liver experiments, the CoAccess electrode produced significantly greater ablation area and longer ablation time than the SuperSlim electrode for several algorithms, with no significant difference for the additional low-power ablation algorithm. In 23 HCC clinical cases using the selected best algorithm, CoAccess had significantly larger ablation volume and longer ablation time, and more often produced round ablation zones compared with SuperSlim.

Outcomes measured

Ablation zone size/area
Ablation volume
Ablation time
Ablation zone shape/configuration (round vs irregular)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "radiofrequency ablation electrodes (SuperSlim, CoAccess)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Clinical cases with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)",
  "sample_size": 23,
  "outcomes": [
    "Ablation zone size/area",
    "Ablation volume",
    "Ablation time",
    "Ablation zone shape/configuration (round vs irregular)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In ex vivo bovine liver experiments, the CoAccess electrode produced significantly greater ablation area and longer ablation time than the SuperSlim electrode for several algorithms, with no significant difference for the additional low-power ablation algorithm. In 23 HCC clinical cases using the selected best algorithm, CoAccess had significantly larger ablation volume and longer ablation time, and more often produced round ablation zones compared with SuperSlim.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency ablation",
    "electrode design",
    "SuperSlim",
    "CoAccess",
    "bovine liver",
    "hepatocellular carcinoma",
    "ablation zone",
    "ablation volume",
    "procedure time"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "engineering",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Compares performance of two radiofrequency ablation electrode designs in ex vivo and clinical settings."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.3892/etm.2011.347
PubMed: 22977647

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library