Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sphere-Enhanced Microwave Ablation (sMWA) Versus Bland Microwave Ablation (bMWA): Technical Parameters, Specific CT 3D Rendering and Histopathology

  • Laboratory Investigation
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study was designed to compare technical parameters during ablation as well as CT 3D rendering and histopathology of the ablation zone between sphere-enhanced microwave ablation (sMWA) and bland microwave ablation (bMWA).

Methods

In six sheep-livers, 18 microwave ablations were performed with identical system presets (power output: 80 W, ablation time: 120 s). In three sheep, transarterial embolisation (TAE) was performed immediately before microwave ablation using spheres (diameter: 40 ± 10 μm) (sMWA). In the other three sheep, microwave ablation was performed without spheres embolisation (bMWA). Contrast-enhanced CT, sacrifice, and liver harvest followed immediately after microwave ablation. Study goals included technical parameters during ablation (resulting power output, ablation time), geometry of the ablation zone applying specific CT 3D rendering with a software prototype (short axis of the ablation zone, volume of the largest aligned ablation sphere within the ablation zone), and histopathology (hematoxylin-eosin, Masson Goldner and TUNEL).

Results

Resulting power output/ablation times were 78.7 ± 1.0 W/120 ± 0.0 s for bMWA and 78.4 ± 1.0 W/120 ± 0.0 s for sMWA (n.s., respectively). Short axis/volume were 23.7 ± 3.7 mm/7.0 ± 2.4 cm3 for bMWA and 29.1 ± 3.4 mm/11.5 ± 3.9 cm3 for sMWA (P < 0.01, respectively). Histopathology confirmed the signs of coagulation necrosis as well as early and irreversible cell death for bMWA and sMWA. For sMWA, spheres were detected within, at the rim, and outside of the ablation zone without conspicuous features.

Conclusions

Specific CT 3D rendering identifies a larger ablation zone for sMWA compared with bMWA. The histopathological signs and the detectable amount of cell death are comparable for both groups. When comparing sMWA with bMWA, TAE has no effect on the technical parameters during ablation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gillams A (2009) Tumour ablation: current role in the kidney, lung and bone. Cancer Imaging 9 Spec No A:S68-70

  2. Pompili M, Saviano A, de Matthaeis N et al (2013) Long-term effectiveness of resection and radiofrequency ablation for single hepatocellular carcinoma ≤3 cm. Results of a multicenter Italian survey. J Hepatol 59(1):89–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rutherford EE, Cast JE, Breen DJ (2008) Immediate and long-term CT appearances following radiofrequency ablation of renal tumours. Clin Radiol 63(2):220–230

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brace CL (2009) Microwave ablation technology: what every user should know. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 38(2):61–67

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Simon CJ, Dupuy DE, Mayo-Smith WW (2005) Microwave ablation: principles and applications. Radiographics 25(Suppl 1):S69–S83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sommer CM, Lemm G, Hohenstein E et al (2013) CT-guided bipolar and multipolar radiofrequency ablation (RF ablation) of renal cell carcinoma: specific technical aspects and clinical results. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36(3):731–737

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Andreano A, Huang Y, Meloni MF, Lee FT Jr, Brace C (2010) Microwaves create larger ablations than radiofrequency when controlled for power in ex vivo tissue. Med Phys 37(6):2967–2973

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ni JY, Liu SS, Xu LF, Sun HL, Chen YT (2013) Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation in combination with transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 19(24):3872–3882

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Xu LF, Sun HL, Chen YT et al (2013) Large primary hepatocellular carcinoma: transarterial chemoembolization monotherapy versus combined transarterial chemoembolization-percutaneous microwave coagulation therapy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 28(3):456–463

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vollherbst D, Fritz S, Zelzer S et al (2014) Specific CT 3D rendering of the treatment zone after irreversible electroporation (IRE) in a pig liver model: the “Chebyshev Center Concept” to define the maximum treatable tumor size. BMC Med Imaging 14:2

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sommer CM, Koch V, Pap B et al (2011) Effect of tissue perfusion on microwave ablation: experimental in vivo study in porcine kidneys. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22(12):1751–1757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sommer CM, Kortes N, Zelzer S et al (2011) Renal artery embolization combined with radiofrequency ablation in a porcine kidney model: effect of small and narrowly calibrated microparticles as embolization material on coagulation diameter, volume, and shape. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 34(1):156–165

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoffmann R, Rempp H, Clasen S (2012) Microwave tumor ablation. new devices, new applications? Radiologe 52(1):22–28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sommer CM, Arnegger F, Koch V et al (2012) Microwave ablation of porcine kidneys in vivo: effect of two different ablation modes (“temperature control” and “power control”) on procedural outcome. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35(3):653–660

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang YJ, Liang HH, Chen MS et al (2007) Hepatocellular carcinoma treated with radiofrequency ablation with or without ethanol injection: a prospective randomized trial. Radiology 244(2):599–607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang X, Sofocleous CT, Erinjeri JP et al (2013) Margin size is an independent predictor of local tumor progression after ablation of colon cancer liver metastases. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36(1):166–175

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sommer CM, Sommer SA, Sommer WO et al (2013) Optimisation of the coagulation zone for thermal ablation procedures: a theoretical approach with considerations for practical use. Int J Hyperthermia 29(7):620–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stampfl S, Bellemann N, Stampfl U et al (2009) Arterial distribution characteristics of Embozene particles and comparison with other spherical embolic agents in the porcine acute embolization model. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20(12):1597–1607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Iwamoto T, Kawai N, Sato M et al (2008) Effectiveness of hepatic arterial embolization on radiofrequency ablation volume in a swine model: relationship to portal venous flow and liver parenchymal pressure. J Vasc Interv Radiol 19(11):1646–1651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Technically AngioDynamics, Queensbury, NY, as well as CeloNova BioSciences, San Antonio, TX, supported this study.

Conflict of Interest

Theresa L. Gockner, Sascha Zelzer, Theresa Mokry, Daniel Gnutzmann, Nadine Bellemann, Carolin Mogler, Anja Beierfuß, Eva Köllensperger, Günter Germann, Boris A Radeleff, Ulrike Stampfl, Hans U. Kauczor, Philippe L. Pereira, Christof M. Sommer declare that this study was technically supported by AngioDynamics, Queensbury, NY as well as CeloNova BioSciences, San Antonio, TX.

Human and Animal Rights

All applicable institutional and/or national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, INF 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    T. L. Gockner, T. Mokry, D. Gnutzmann, N. Bellemann, B. A. Radeleff, U. Stampfl, H. U. Kauczor & C. M. Sommer

  2. Medical and Biological Informatics, German Cancer Research Center (dkfz), INF 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    S. Zelzer

  3. Department of General Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, INF 224, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    C. Mogler

  4. Clinic for Plastic Reconstructive Surgery and Aesthetic Surgery, Ethianum Heidelberg, Voßstraße 6, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany

    A. Beierfuß, E. Köllensperger & G. Germann

  5. Clinic for Radiology, Minimally-invasive Therapies and Nuclear Medicine, SLK Kliniken Heilbronn GmbH, Am Gesundbrunnen 20-26, 74078, Heilbronn, Germany

    P. L. Pereira

Authors
  1. T. L. Gockner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Zelzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Mokry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Gnutzmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. Bellemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Mogler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Beierfuß
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. E. Köllensperger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. G. Germann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. B. A. Radeleff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. U. Stampfl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. H. U. Kauczor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. P. L. Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. C. M. Sommer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. L. Gockner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gockner, T.L., Zelzer, S., Mokry, T. et al. Sphere-Enhanced Microwave Ablation (sMWA) Versus Bland Microwave Ablation (bMWA): Technical Parameters, Specific CT 3D Rendering and Histopathology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 38, 442–452 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-014-0964-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-014-0964-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation