4.6 Article

Bipolar radiofrequency ablation of spinal tumors: predictability, safety and outcome

期刊

SPINE JOURNAL
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 604-608

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.081

关键词

Bipolar radiofrequency ablation; Spinal tumors; Predictability; Ablation zone; Safety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases are often the cause of tumor-associated pain and reduction of quality of life. For patients that cannot be treated by surgery, a local minimally invasive therapy such as radiofrequency ablation can be a useful option. In cases in which tumorous masses are adjacent to vulnerable structures, the monopolar radiofrequency can cause severe neuronal damage because of the unpredictability of current flow. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to show that the bipolar radiofrequency ablation provides an opportunity to safely treat such spinal lesions because of precise predictability of the emerging ablation zone. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of 36 patients undergoing treatment at a single institution. PATIENT SAMPLE: Thirty-six patients in advanced tumor stage with primary or secondary tumor involvement of spine undergoing radiofrequency ablation. OUTCOME MEASURES: Prediction of emerging ablation zone. Clinical outcome of treated patients. METHODS: X-ray-controlled treatment of 39 lesions by bipolar radiofrequency ablation. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed pre- and postinterventionally. Patients were observed clinically during their postinterventional stay. RESULTS: The extent of the ablation zones was predictable to the millimeter because it did not cross the peri-interventional planned dorsal and ventral boundaries in any case. No complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ablation of tumorous masses adjacent to vulnerable structures is feasible and predictable by using the bipolar radiofrequency ablation. Damage of neuronal structures can be avoided through precise prediction of the ablation area. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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