heat insulation efficacy of 5% dextrose versus 0.9% saline during radiofrequency ablation

Purpose This study compared the efficacy of heat insulation between 5% dextrose and 0.9% saline in radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Accordingly, temperature variations and maximum temperatures were assessed at identical distances and heat field distributions. Methods Cubes of porcine liver tissue, mea...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) Korea), 2024-09, Vol.43 (5), p.376-383
Hauptverfasser: Yanping Ma, Jinfen Wang, Tao Wu, Bowen Zheng, Tinghui Yin, Yufan Lian, Jie Ren
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose This study compared the efficacy of heat insulation between 5% dextrose and 0.9% saline in radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Accordingly, temperature variations and maximum temperatures were assessed at identical distances and heat field distributions. Methods Cubes of porcine liver tissue, measuring 10 mm across, were selected to precisely align the ablation boundary with the tissue boundary. An 18-gauge electrode with a 7-mm tip was inserted into each cube (10 per group) in a stainless-steel cup containing 40 mL of 5% dextrose or 0.9% saline. Fixed ablation was performed for 3 minutes using continuous mode at 30 W, simulating the typical thermal environment during thyroid RFA. Real-time temperature measurements were recorded by sensors positioned 0, 1, 3, and 5 mm from the cube’s edge. A comparative analysis was conducted to assess the maximum temperature, temperature variation, and duration of temperatures exceeding 42℃. Results In both groups, the temperature curve declined with increasing distance from the edge of the ablated tissue. However, 0.9% saline exhibited higher maximum temperatures at 1, 3, and 5 mm compared to 5% dextrose (1 mm: 44.55°C±5.25°C vs. 34.68°C±3.07°C; 3 mm: 39.64°C±2.53°C vs. 29.22°C±2.21°C; 5 mm: 38.86°C±2.14°C vs. 28.74°C±2.51°C; all P
ISSN:2288-5919
2288-5943
DOI:10.14366/usg.24073