4.3 Article

Complications of Microwave Ablation for Liver Tumors: Results of a Multicenter Study

Journal

CARDIOVASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 4, Pages 868-874

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00270-011-0241-8

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma, therapy; Microwave ablation, treatment; Microwave ablation, complications; Liver metastases, therapy; Minimally invasive procedures

Ask authors/readers for more resources

New technologies for microwave ablation (MWA) have been conceived, designed to achieve larger areas of necrosis compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The purpose of this study was to report complications by using this technique in patients with focal liver cancer. Members of 14 Italian centers used a 2.45-GMHz generator delivering energy through a cooled miniature-choke MW antenna and a standardized protocol for follow-up. They completed a questionnaire regarding number and type of deaths, major and minor complications and side effects, and likelihood of their relationship to the procedure. Enrollment included 736 patients with 1.037 lesions: 522 had hepatocellular carcinoma with cirrhosis, 187 had metastases predominantly from colorectal cancer, and 27 had cholangiocellular carcinoma. Tumor size ranged from 0.5 to 10 cm. In 13 centers, the approach used was percutaneous, in 4 videolaparoscopic, and in 3 laparotomic. No deaths were reported. Major complications occurred in 22 cases (2.9%), and minor complications in 54 patients (7.3%). Complications of MWA do not differ from those RFA, both being based on the heat damage. Results of this multicenter study confirmed those of single-center experiences, indicating that MWA is a safe procedure, with no mortality and a low rate of major complications. The low rate of complications was probably due to precautions adopted, knowing in advance possible risk conditions, on the basis of prior RFA experience.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available