Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to validate actually achieved macroscopic ablation volumes in relation to calculated target volumes using four different radiofrequency ablation (RFA) systems operated with default settings and protocols for 3 cm and 5 cm target volumes in ex vivo bovine liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four cuboid liver specimens were ablated with four commercially available RFA systems (Radionics Cool-tip, AngioDynamic 1500X, Boston Scientific RF 3000, Celon CelonPower LAB): 16 specimens for each system; eight for 3 cm, and eight for 5 cm. Ablation diameters were measured, volumes were calculated, and RFA times were recorded. RESULTS: For the 3 cm target ablation volume, all tested RFA systems exceeded the mathematically calculated volume of 14.14 cm3. For the 3 cm target ablation volume, mean ablation volume and mean ablation time for each RFA system were as follows: 28.5 ± 6.5 cm3, 12.0 ± 0.0 min for Radionics Cool-tip; 17.1 ± 4.9 cm3, 9.36 ± 0.63 min for AngioDynamic 1500X; 29.7 ± 11.7 cm3, 4.60 ± 0.50 min for Boston Scientific RF 3000; and 28.8 ± 7.0 cm3, 20.85 ± 0.86 min for Celon CelonPower LAB. For the 5 cm target ablation volume, Radionics Cool-tip (48.3 ± 9.9 cm3, 12.0 ± 0.0 min) and AngioDynamic 1500X (39.4 ± 16.2 cm3, 19.59 ± 1.13 min) did not reach the mathematically calculated target ablation volume (65.45 cm3), whereas Boston Scientific RF 3000 (71.8 ± 14.5 cm3, 9.15 ± 2.93 min) and Celon CelonPower LAB (93.9 ± 28.1 cm3, 40.21 ± 1.78 min) exceeded it. CONCLUSION: While all systems reached the 3 cm target ablation volume, results were variable for the 5 cm target ablation volume. Only Boston Scientific RF 3000 and Celon CelonPower LAB created volumes above the target, whereas Radionics Cool-tip and AngioDynamic 1500X remained below the target volume. For the 3 cm target ablation volume, AngioDynamic 1500X with 21% deviation was closest to the target volume. For the 5 cm target volume Boston Scientific RF 3000 with 10% deviation was closest.