Minimally invasive therapy & allied technologies : MITAT : official journal of the Society for Minimally Invasive Therapy · 2024
Is cryoablation a valid option for renal cell carcinomas in direct contact with critical organs?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nagata Shoma, Matsui Yusuke, Tomita Koji, Uka Mayu, Kawabata Takahiro, Umakoshi Noriyuki, Munetomo Kazuaki, Kawada Maria, Iguchi Toshihiro, Hiraki Takao
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the outcomes of percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) for renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) contacting critical organs without intervening fat tissue.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients with 24 RCCs (mean size, 28.8 mm) contacting critical organs on preprocedural images were included. The organ displacement techniques, technical success, efficacy, and adverse events per Clavien-Dindo classification were retrospectively reviewed.
RESULTS: The organs contacting the RCCs included the colon (n = 16), pancreas (n = 3), duodenum (n = 3), small intestine (n = 1), and stomach (n = 1). In all procedures, hydrodissection was conducted, and probe traction was additionally utilized in one to displace organs. Two procedures were terminated with an insufficient ice-ball margin (<6 mm) due to recurring proximity of the colon or thermal sink effect by renal hilar vessels, yielding a technical success rate of 91.6% (22/24). No severe adverse events were noted. All patients were alive without any metastases during a median follow-up of 34.4 months. The primary and secondary technical efficacy rates were 91.6% (22/24) and 95.8% (23/24) of tumors, respectively.
CONCLUSION: PCA can be a valid option for RCCs contacting critical organs with a good safety profile and sufficient technical efficacy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients with 24 RCCs (mean size, 28.8 mm) contacting critical organs on preprocedural images were included. The organ displacement techniques, technical success, efficacy, and adverse events per Clavien-Dindo classification were retrospectively reviewed.
RESULTS: The organs contacting the RCCs included the colon (n = 16), pancreas (n = 3), duodenum (n = 3), small intestine (n = 1), and stomach (n = 1). In all procedures, hydrodissection was conducted, and probe traction was additionally utilized in one to displace organs. Two procedures were terminated with an insufficient ice-ball margin (<6 mm) due to recurring proximity of the colon or thermal sink effect by renal hilar vessels, yielding a technical success rate of 91.6% (22/24). No severe adverse events were noted. All patients were alive without any metastases during a median follow-up of 34.4 months. The primary and secondary technical efficacy rates were 91.6% (22/24) and 95.8% (23/24) of tumors, respectively.
CONCLUSION: PCA can be a valid option for RCCs contacting critical organs with a good safety profile and sufficient technical efficacy.