Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27266723›Full record

ArticleRadiology2016

Irreversible Electroporation in the Epidural Space of the Porcine Spine: Effects on Adjacent Structures.

Alda L Tam, Tomas A Figueira, Mihai Gagea, Joe E Ensor, Katherine Dixon, Amanda McWatters, Sanjay Gupta, David T Fuentes

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alda L TamFrom the Departments of Interventional Radiology (A.L.T., T.A.F., K.D., A.M., S.G.), Veterinary Medicine and Surgery (M.G.), and Imaging Physics (D.T.F.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1471, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX 77230-1402; and the Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Tex (J.E.E.).
Tomas A FigueiraFrom the Departments of Interventional Radiology (A.L.T., T.A.F., K.D., A.M., S.G.), Veterinary Medicine and Surgery (M.G.), and Imaging Physics (D.T.F.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1471, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX 77230-1402; and the Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Tex (J.E.E.).
Mihai GageaFrom the Departments of Interventional Radiology (A.L.T., T.A.F., K.D., A.M., S.G.), Veterinary Medicine and Surgery (M.G.), and Imaging Physics (D.T.F.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1471, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX 77230-1402; and the Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Tex (J.E.E.).
Joe E EnsorFrom the Departments of Interventional Radiology (A.L.T., T.A.F., K.D., A.M., S.G.), Veterinary Medicine and Surgery (M.G.), and Imaging Physics (D.T.F.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1471, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX 77230-1402; and the Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Tex (J.E.E.).
Katherine DixonFrom the Departments of Interventional Radiology (A.L.T., T.A.F., K.D., A.M., S.G.), Veterinary Medicine and Surgery (M.G.), and Imaging Physics (D.T.F.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1471, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX 77230-1402; and the Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Tex (J.E.E.).
Amanda McWattersFrom the Departments of Interventional Radiology (A.L.T., T.A.F., K.D., A.M., S.G.), Veterinary Medicine and Surgery (M.G.), and Imaging Physics (D.T.F.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1471, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX 77230-1402; and the Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Tex (J.E.E.).
Sanjay GuptaFrom the Departments of Interventional Radiology (A.L.T., T.A.F., K.D., A.M., S.G.), Veterinary Medicine and Surgery (M.G.), and Imaging Physics (D.T.F.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1471, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX 77230-1402; and the Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Tex (J.E.E.).
David T FuentesFrom the Departments of Interventional Radiology (A.L.T., T.A.F., K.D., A.M., S.G.), Veterinary Medicine and Surgery (M.G.), and Imaging Physics (D.T.F.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1471, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX 77230-1402; and the Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Tex (J.E.E.).
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose To determine the effects of irreversible electroporation (IRE) on the neural tissues after ablation in the epidural space of the porcine spine. Materials and Methods The institutional animal care and use committee approved this study. With the IRE electrode positioned in the right lateral recess of the spinal epidural space, 20 IRE ablations were performed with computed tomographic (CT) guidance by using different applied voltages in four animals that were euthanized immediately after magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the spine, performed 6 hours after IRE (terminal group). Histopathologic characteristics of the neural tissues were assessed and used to select a voltage for a survival study. Sixteen CT-guided IRE ablations in the epidural space were performed by using 667 V in four animals that were survived for 7 days (survival group). Clinical characteristics, MR imaging findings (obtained 6 hours after IRE and before euthanasia), histopathologic characteristics, and simulated electric field strengths were assessed. A one-way analysis of variance was used to compare the simulated electric field strength to histologic findings. Results The mean distance between the IRE electrode and the spinal cord and nerve root was 1.71 mm ± 0.90 and 8.47 mm + 3.44, respectively. There was no clinical evidence of paraplegia after IRE ablation. MR imaging and histopathologic examination showed no neural tissue lesions within the spinal cord; however, five of 16 nerve roots (31.2%) demonstrated moderate wallerian degeneration in the survival group. The severity of histopathologic injury in the survival group was not significantly related to either the simulated electric field strength or the distance between the IRE electrode and the neural structure (P > .05). Conclusion Although the spinal cord appears resistant to the toxic effects of IRE, injury to the nerve roots may be a limiting factor for the use of IRE ablation in the epidural space.

Indexed as

ElectroporationAblation TechniquesAnimalsEpidural SpaceMagnetic Resonance ImagingSpinal CordSpinal Cord InjuriesSpinal Nerve RootsSus scrofaSwineTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID27266723
PMCPMC5952366
OpenAlexW2411884165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.