European journal of radiology · 2024
Gastrointestinal tract perforation after radiofrequency ablation for hepatic tumor: Incidence and risk factors.
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.
Gu Kyowon, Kang Tae Wook, Han Seungchul, Cha Dong Ik, Song Kyoung Doo, Lee Min Woo, Rhim Hyunchul, Park Go Eun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the incidence and mortality rate of gastrointestinal (GI) tract perforation after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatic tumors and assess its risk factors.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 4799 patients with malignant tumors who underwent RFA (n = 7206). Sixty-nine cases of thermal injury to the GI tract were identified via a search of the electronic medical record system using index terms and divided into two groups according to the thermal injury with (n = 8) or without (n = 61) GI tract perforation based on follow-up CT reports. The risk factors for GI tract perforation were identified via multivariable logistic regression analysis using clinical, technical, and follow-up CT findings.
RESULTS: The incidence of thermal injury to the GI tract and GI tract perforation was 0.96 % (69/7206) and 0.11 % (8/7206), respectively. The type of adjacent GI tract and history of diabetes mellitus differed significantly between the two groups (p < 0.05). The index tumor being located around the small intestine was the only significant risk factor for GI tract perforation after ablation (Odds ratio, 22.69; 95 % confidence interval, 2.59-198.34; p = 0.005 [reference standard, stomach]). All perforations were not identified on CT images immediately after RFA. The median time to detection was 20 days (range, 3-41 days). Two patients (25 %, 2/8) died due to perforation-related complications.
CONCLUSION: GI tract perforation after RFA for hepatic tumors is rare; however, it is associated with high mortality. Thus, careful follow-up is required after RFA if the index tumor is located around the small intestine.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 4799 patients with malignant tumors who underwent RFA (n = 7206). Sixty-nine cases of thermal injury to the GI tract were identified via a search of the electronic medical record system using index terms and divided into two groups according to the thermal injury with (n = 8) or without (n = 61) GI tract perforation based on follow-up CT reports. The risk factors for GI tract perforation were identified via multivariable logistic regression analysis using clinical, technical, and follow-up CT findings.
RESULTS: The incidence of thermal injury to the GI tract and GI tract perforation was 0.96 % (69/7206) and 0.11 % (8/7206), respectively. The type of adjacent GI tract and history of diabetes mellitus differed significantly between the two groups (p < 0.05). The index tumor being located around the small intestine was the only significant risk factor for GI tract perforation after ablation (Odds ratio, 22.69; 95 % confidence interval, 2.59-198.34; p = 0.005 [reference standard, stomach]). All perforations were not identified on CT images immediately after RFA. The median time to detection was 20 days (range, 3-41 days). Two patients (25 %, 2/8) died due to perforation-related complications.
CONCLUSION: GI tract perforation after RFA for hepatic tumors is rare; however, it is associated with high mortality. Thus, careful follow-up is required after RFA if the index tumor is located around the small intestine.