4.7 Article

Heat sink effects in thyroid bipolar radiofrequency ablation: an ex vivo study

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-45926-2

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to investigate heat sink effects in radiofrequency ablation (RFA) under thyroid-specific conditions and found that significant heat sink effects were observed under thyroid-specific conditions, which may limit the efficacy of ablation even at low flow rates.
The study aimed to investigate heat sink effects in radiofrequency ablation (RFA) under thyroid-specific conditions. In an ex vivo model, bovine thyroid lobes were ablated using bipolar RFA with 2.0 kJ energy input at a power level set to 10 W (n = 35) and 25 W (n = 35). Glass vessels (3.0 mm outer diameter) placed within the ablation zone were used to deliver tissue perfusion at various flow rates (0, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 20 ml/min). Temperature was measured in the proximity of the vessel (Tv) and in the non-perfused contralateral region of the ablation zone (Tc), at equal distances to the ablation electrode (d = 8 mm). Maximum temperature within the perfused zone was significantly lowered with Tv ranging from 54.1 +/- 1.5 degrees C (20 ml/min) to 56.9 +/- 1.5 degrees C (0.25 ml/min), compared to Tc from 63.2 +/- 3.5 degrees C (20 ml/min) to 63.2 +/- 2.6 degrees C (0.25 ml/min) (10 W group). The cross-sectional ablation zone area decreased with increasing flow rates from 184 +/- 12 mm2 (0 ml/min) to 141 +/- 20 mm2 (20 ml/min) at 10 W, and from 207 +/- 22 mm2 (0 ml/min) to 158 +/- 31 mm2 (20 ml/min) in the 25 W group. Significant heat sink effects were observed under thyroid-specific conditions even at flow rates <= 1 ml/min. In thyroid nodules with prominent vasculature, heat dissipation through perfusion may therefore result in clinically relevant limitations to ablation efficacy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available