4.7 Article

Renal tumors: MR imaging-guided percutaneous cryotherapy - Initial experience in 23 patients

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 236, 期 2, 页码 716-724

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2362041107

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To evaluate the initial clinical experience of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided percutaneous cryotherapy of renal tumors. MATERIAL AND METHODS; Twenty-six renal tumors (diameter range 1.0-4.6 cm; mean, 2.6 cm) in 23 patients were treated with 27 cryoblation procedures by using protocol approved by the human subjects committee at the authors' institution. The study compiled with the health Insurance portability and accountabilty Act. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient. There were 17 men and six women with an average age of 66 years(range 43-86 years). of 26 masses, 24 were renal cell carcinoma, one was a transitional cell carcinoma, and one was an angiomyolipoma. By using a 0.5-T open MR imaging system and general anesthesia in patients, one to five (mean, 2.4) needlelike cryoprobes were placed and lesions were ablated by using real-time MR imaging for intraprocedural monitoring of ice balls. Tumors were considered successfully ablated if they demonstrated no contrast enhancement at follow-up computed tomography or MR imaging (mean, 14 months; range, 4-30 months). RESULTS: Twenty-four of 26 tumors were successfully ablated, 23 of which required only one treatment session. Two complications occurred in a total of 27 cryoablations: one hemmorrhage, which required a blood transfusion, and one abscess, which was treated successfully with percutaneous catheter drainage. CONCLUSION: MR imaging-guided percutaneous cryotherapy of renal tumors shows promise for the treatment of selected small renal tumors, and MR imaging can be used to monitor the treatment intraprocedurally. This technique may prove useful for ablation of renal tumors completely in one session, but long-term follow-up is needed. (c) RSNA, 2005.

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

4.7
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