ArticlePloS one2017
No-touch radiofrequency ablation using multiple electrodes: An in vivo comparison study of switching monopolar versus switching bipolar modes in porcine livers.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- No-Touch Radiofrequency Ablation for Early Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2023 Korean Society of Image-Guided Tumor Ablation Guidelines.Korean journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Review of Radiofrequency Ablation in Tonsillectomy.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2022Article
- Intra-articular hip joint osteoid osteoma: Challenging diagnosis and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation treatment.Radiology case reports · 2021Article
- Switching Monopolar No-Touch Radiofrequency Ablation Using Octopus Electrodes for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Liver cancer · 2021Article
- Influence of interapplicator distance on multibipolar radiofrequency ablation during physiological and interrupted liver perfusion in an in vivo porcine model.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Recent Advances in the Image-Guided Tumor Ablation of Liver Malignancies: Radiofrequency Ablation with Multiple Electrodes, Real-Time Multimodality Fusion Imaging, and New Energy Sources.Korean journal of radiologyReview
- Computed Tomography-Guided Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation in Older Adults With Early-Stage Peripheral Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the in vivo technical feasibility, efficiency, and safety of switching bipolar (SB) and switching monopolar (SM) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) as a no-touch ablation technique in the porcine liver. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe animal care and use committee approved this animal study and 16 pigs were used in two independent experiments. In the first experiment, RFA was performed on 2-cm tumor mimickers in the liver using a no-touch technique in the SM mode (2 groups, SM1: 10 minutes, n = 10; SM2: 15 minutes, n = 10) and SB-mode (1 group, SB: 10 minutes, n = 10). The technical success with sufficient safety margins, creation of confluent necrosis, ablation size, and distance between the electrode and ablation zone margin (DEM), were compared between groups. In the second experiment, thermal injury to the adjacent anatomic organs was compared between SM-RFA (15 minutes, n = 13) and SB-RFA modes (10 minutes, n = 13).
resultsThe rates of the technical success and the creation of confluent necrosis were higher in the SB group than in the SM1 groups (100% vs. 60% and 90% vs. 40%, both p < 0.05). The ablation volume in the SM2 group was significantly larger than that in the SB group (59.2±18.7 cm3 vs. 39.8±9.7 cm3, p < 0.05), and the DEM in the SM2 group was also larger than that in the SB group (1.39±0.21 cm vs. 1.07±0.10 cm, p < 0.05). In the second experiment, the incidence of thermal injury to the adjacent organs and tissues in the SB group (23.1%, 3/13) was significantly lower than that in the SM group (69.2%, 8/13) (p = 0.021).
conclusionSB-RFA was more advantageous for a no-touch technique for liver tumors, showing the potential of a better safety profile than SM-RFA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.