ArticleBMC surgery2025
Real-world safety of irreversible electroporation therapy for tumors with nanoknife: MAUDE database analysis.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. 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.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIrreversible electroporation (IRE) is a non-thermal ablation technique using high-voltage, low-energy pulses to induce cell membrane perforation and cell death. As an emerging therapy, IRE has gained increasing application in local tumor treatment, with Nanoknife being the most widely used device. Despite its relative safety compared to traditional therapies, potential adverse reactions still merit the attention of clinicians.
methodsWe analyzed all IRE-related adverse event reports in the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, focusing on event types, Clavien-Dindo Grades, the timing of adverse events and temporal trends across cancers.
resultsDevice malfunctions with Nanoknife were a significant issue but have declined recently. In pancreatic cancer, gastrointestinal injuries (mainly hemorrhagic lesions) were most commonly reported. In liver cancer, arrhythmias were frequent, with no new cases in recent years. In prostate cancer, rectal fistula was the most common adverse event, with an increasing number of cases being reported.
conclusionsTheoretically, the Nanoknife is expected to exhibit favorable safety profiles. However, ongoing attention to device maintenance, treatment standardization, and postoperative management is needed to further enhance its safety.
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.