ArticleBiology2023
Multi-Probe RFA vs. Single-Probe MWA in an Ex Vivo Bovine Liver Model: Comparison of Volume and Shape of Coagulation Zones.
Article in Biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A rapid path planning approach for liver tumor ablation with comprehensive constraints.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Extrapulmonary metastases impact survival outcomes of thermal ablation for colorectal lung oligometastases: A multicenter study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the volumes and shapes of the coagulation zone (CZ) of a multi-probe RFA system (three RFA electrodes) and a single-probe MWA system from the same vendor in an ex vivo bovine liver model. MATERIAL &
methodsA total of 48 CZs were obtained in bovine liver specimens with three different ablation system configurations (single-probe MWA vs. multi-probe RFA with 20 mm inter-probe distance [confluent CZ] vs. multi-probe RFA with 50 mm inter-probe distance [three individual CZs]) at 4, 6, 8, and 10 min ablation time using a fixed ablation protocol. Ablation diameters were measured and ellipticity indices (EIs) and volumes calculated. Calculations for all systems/configurations were compared.
resultsVolumes and diameters increased with ablation time for all configurations. At 4 and 6 min ablation time volumes obtained with the RFA 50 mm setup, and at 8 and 10 min with the RFA 20 mm setup were the largest at 26.5 ± 4.1 mL, 38.1 ± 5.8 mL, 46.3 ± 4.9 mL, 48.4 ± 7.3 mL, respectively. The single-probe MWA could not reach the volumes of the RFA setups for any of the ablation times evaluated. EI were very similar and almost round for RFA 20 mm and single-probe MWA, and differed significantly to the more ovoid ones for the RFA 50 mm configuration.
conclusionsThe multi-probe RFA system employing three electrodes achieved significantly larger ablation volumes in both configurations (confluent CZ and three individual CZs) per time as compared with a single-probe MWA system in this ex vivo bovine liver model.
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.