Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39129075›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur medizinische Physik2025

Reducing electromagnetic interference in MR thermometry: A comparison of setup configurations for MR-guided microwave ablations.

Simon Schröer, Daniel Düx, Josef Joaquin Löning Caballero, Julian Glandorf, Thomas Gerlach, Dominik Horstmann, Othmar Belker, Moritz Gutt, Frank Wacker, Oliver Speck and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Image-Based Monitoring of Thermal Ablation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
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

12 authors.

Simon SchröerHannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, Hanover 30625, Lower Saxony, Germany; Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, Magdeburg 39106, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. Electronic address: schroeer.simon@mh-hannover.de.
Daniel DüxHannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, Hanover 30625, Lower Saxony, Germany; Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, Magdeburg 39106, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.
Josef Joaquin Löning CaballeroHannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, Hanover 30625, Lower Saxony, Germany; Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, Magdeburg 39106, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.
Julian GlandorfHannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, Hanover 30625, Lower Saxony, Germany; Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, Magdeburg 39106, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.
Thomas GerlachOtto-von-Guericke-Universität, Universitätsplatz 2, Magdeburg 39106, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany; Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, Magdeburg 39106, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.
Dominik HorstmannHannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, Hanover 30625, Lower Saxony, Germany; Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, Magdeburg 39106, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.
Othmar BelkerHannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, Hanover 30625, Lower Saxony, Germany; Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, Magdeburg 39106, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.
Moritz GuttHannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, Hanover 30625, Lower Saxony, Germany; Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, Magdeburg 39106, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.
Frank WackerHannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, Hanover 30625, Lower Saxony, Germany; Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, Magdeburg 39106, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.
Oliver SpeckOtto-von-Guericke-Universität, Universitätsplatz 2, Magdeburg 39106, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany; Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, Magdeburg 39106, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.
Bennet HensenHannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, Hanover 30625, Lower Saxony, Germany; Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, Magdeburg 39106, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.
Marcel GutberletHannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, Hanover 30625, Lower Saxony, Germany; Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, Magdeburg 39106, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Magnetic Resonance (MR) thermometry is used for the monitoring of MR-guided microwave ablations (MWA), and for the intraoperative evaluation of ablation regions. Nevertheless, the accuracy of temperature mapping may be compromised by electromagnetic interference emanating from the microwave (MW) generator. This study evaluated different setups for improving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during MWA with a modified MW generator. MWA was performed in 15 gel phantoms comparing three setups: The MW generator was placed outside the MR scanner room, either connected to the MW applicator using a penetration panel with a radiofrequency (RF) filter and a 7 m coaxial cable (Setup 1), or through a waveguide using a 5 m coaxial cable (Setup 2). Setup 3 employed the MW generator within the MR scan room, connected by a 5 m coaxial cable. The coaxial cables in setups 2 and 3 were modified with custom shielding to reduce interference. The setups during ablation (active setup) were compared to a reference setup without the presence of the MW system. Thermometry and thermal dose maps (CEM43 model) were compared for the three configurations. Primary endpoints for assessment were signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), temperature precision, Sørensen-Dice-Coefficient (DSC), and RF-noise spectra. Setup 3 showed highly significant electromagnetic interference during ablation with a SNR decrease by -60.4%±13.5% (p<0.001) compared to reference imaging. For setup 1 and setup 2 no significant decrease in SNR was measured with differences of -2.9%±9.8% (p=0.6) and -1.5%±12.8% (p=0.8), respectively. SNR differences were significant between active setups 1 and 3 with -51.2%±16.1% (p<0.001) and between active setups 2 and 3 with -59.0%±15.5% (p<0.001) but not significant between active setups 1 and 2 with 19.0%±13.7% (p=0.09). Furthermore, no significant differences were seen in temperature precision or DSCs between all setups, ranging from 0.33 °C ± 0.04 °C (Setup 1) to 0.38 °C ± 0.06 °C (Setup 3) (p=0.6) and from 87.0%±1.6% (Setup 3) to 88.1%±1.6% (Setup 2) (p=0.58), respectively. Both setups (1 and 2) with the MW generator outside the MR scanner room were beneficial to reduce electromagnetic interference during MWA. Moreover, provided that a shielded cable is utilized in setups 2 and 3, all configurations displayed negligible differences in temperature precision and DSCs, indicating that the location of the MW generator does not significantly impact the accuracy of thermometry during MWA.

Indexed as

Ablation TechniquesMagnetic Resonance ImagingMicrowavesSurgery, Computer-AssistedThermometryEquipment DesignHumansPhantoms, ImagingElectromagnetic compatibilityElectromagnetic interferenceMR-guided microwave ablationMR thermometryShielding

Identifiers

PMID39129075
PMCPMC11910257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.