4.4 Article

Temperature distribution during RF ablation on ex vivo liver tissue: IR measurements and simulations

期刊

HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER
卷 51, 期 5, 页码 611-620

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00231-014-1437-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR) through PRIN project Metodi di misura e di simulazione numerica innovativi a supporto della termoablazione a radiofrequenza su tessuti parenchimali
  2. Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pavia
  3. Fondazione Cura Mini-invasiva Tumori ONLUS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Radiofrequency thermal ablation is the first therapeutic option for the minimally invasive treatment of liver tumors. This medical procedure employs the Joule heat produced by a RF electromagnetic field to kill tumor cells. The outcome of the procedure is strongly affected by the temperature distribution near the RF applicator, however the measurement of this distribution, even in ex vivo experiments, is not straightforward since most traditional local temperature measurement techniques are not well-suited, due to both electromagnetic interferences and the sensor heat sink effect. Given the importance of the temperature field knowledge, in this paper special care was devoted to its measurement employing both infrared thermal imaging and NTC thermistors. Several RF ablation tests on ex vivo porcine liver tissue were carried out measuring the space-time evolution of temperature during the procedure (with spatial resolution a parts per thousand currency sign1 mm) and producing useful data for the design and the calibration of a numerical model. Electro-thermal numerical simulations of the experimental tests were performed using a mathematical model suitable for the heating phase of the procedure (up to 95 A degrees C). The simulations results allowed to check the physical consistency of the measured data and suggested that a constant thermal conductivity is satisfactory for modeling the temperature evolution during RF ablation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据