4.4 Review

Review of the mathematical functions used to model the temperature dependence of electrical and thermal conductivities of biological tissue in radiofrequency ablation

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYPERTHERMIA
卷 29, 期 6, 页码 590-597

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02656736.2013.807438

关键词

Electrical conductivity; radiofrequency ablation; thermal conductivity; theoretical modelling; tissue characteristics

资金

  1. Spanish Plan Nacional de I+D+I del Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [TEC2011-27133-C02-01]
  2. UPV [PAID-06-11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Although theoretical modelling is widely used to study different aspects of radiofrequency ablation (RFA), its utility is directly related to its realism. An important factor in this realism is the use of mathematical functions to model the temperature dependence of thermal (k) and electrical (sigma) conductivities of tissue. Our aim was to review the piecewise mathematical functions most commonly used for modelling the temperature dependence of k and sigma in RFA computational modelling. Materials and methods: We built a hepatic RFA theoretical model of a cooled electrode and compared lesion dimensions and impedance evolution with combinations of mathematical functions proposed in previous studies. We employed the thermal damage contour D63 to compute the lesion dimension contour, which corresponds to Omega = 1, Omega being local thermal damage assessed by the Arrhenius damage model. Results: The results were very similar in all cases in terms of impedance evolution and lesion size after 6 min of ablation. Although the relative differences between cases in terms of time to first roll-off (abrupt increase in impedance) were as much as 12%, the maximum relative differences in terms of the short lesion (transverse) diameter were below 3.5%. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the different methods of modelling temperature dependence of k and sigma reported in the literature do not significantly affect the computed lesion diameter.

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