4.4 Article

Percutaneous Ablation of Peribiliary Tumors with Irreversible Electroporation

Journal

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 112-118

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2013.10.012

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. AngioDynamics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess biliary complications after irreversible electroporation (IRE) ablation of hepatic tumors located < 1 cm from major bile ducts. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of all percutaneous IRE ablations of hepatic tumors Within cm of the common, left, or right hepatic ducts at a single institution from January 2011 to September 2012. Computed tomography imaging performed before and after treatment was examined for evidence of bile duct dilatation, stricture, or leakage. Serum bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase levels were analyzed for evidence of biliary injury. Results: There were 22 hepatic metastases in 11 patients With at least one tumor within 1 cm of the common, left, or right hepatic duct that were treated with IRE ablations in 15 sessions. Median tumor size treated was 3.0 cm (mean, 2.8 cm +/- 1.2, range, 1.0-4.7 cm). Laboratory values obtained after IRE were considered abnormal after four treatment sessions in three Patients (bilirubin, 2.6-17.6 mg/dL; alkaline phosphatase, 130-1,035 U/L); these abnormal values were transient in two sessions. Two patients had prolonged elevation of values, and one required stent placement; both of these conditions appeared to be secondary to tumor progression rather than bile duct injury. Conclusions: This clinical experience suggests that IRE may be a treatment option for centrally located liver tumors With margins adjacent to major bile duets where thermal ablation techniques are Contraindicated. Further studies with extended follow-up periods are necessary to establish the safety profile of IRE in this setting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available