ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2020
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation of porcine liver.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of liver cancer microwave ablation through ultrasonic image guidance under deep migration feature algorithm.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAnimal studies of endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) of the liver have rarely been reported. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of EUS-RFA in pigs.
methodsWe conducted four experiments using newly designed RFA electrodes. In the first experiment, we ablated excised liver using 19 G electrodes with active electrode tips with lengths of 1, 1.5, and 2 cm. The second experiment was performed with the same electrodes as those used in the first experiment, but with the electrodes inserted into the livers of live pigs under EUS. In the third experiment, we tested the electrodes for water permeability. In the fourth experiment, we performed EUS-RFA on live pigs, using 19 G electrodes in 7/12 pigs and 18 G electrodes in 5/12 pigs. Complications were evaluated after 7 days of survival.
resultsThe newly designed RFA electrodes achieved ablation of the liver. In the first experiment, the maximal sizes of the ablation areas were 27, 26, 24, and 25 mm at 10, 20, 30, and 40 W, respectively, with the 2-cm electrode. In the second experiment, the maximal vertical sizes were 22, 23, 22, and 23 mm at 10, 20, 30, and 40 W, respectively, with the 2-cm electrode. In the third experiment, the 18 G electrode had better water permeability than the 19 G electrode. In the fourth experiment, all pigs survived. Complications occurred in 1/5 (18 G electrode) and 4/7 (19 G electrode) pigs.
conclusionWe performed EUS-RFA in pigs and concluded that it may be feasible to perform RFA of lesions near the stomach.
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.