Modeling Cryotherapy Ice Ball Dimensions and Isotherms in a Novel Gel-based Model to Determine Optimal Cryo-needle Configurations and Settings for Potential Use in Clinical Practice - 21/04/16
, Uri Arbel d, Sonja Foss e, Andrew Zachman e, Simon Rodney a, b, Hashim U. Ahmed a, b, Manit Arya a, b, fAbstract |
Objective |
To gain a better understanding of ice ball dimensions and temperature isotherms relevant for cell kill when using combinations of cryo-needles we set out to answer 4 questions: (1) what type of cryo-needle? (2) how many needles? (3) best spatial configuration? and (4) correct duty cycle percentage?
Methods |
We conducted laboratory experiments to monitor ice ball dimensions and create multi-needle planar isotherm maps for 17G and 10G cryo-needles using a novel multi-needle thermocouple fixture within gel at body temperature. We tested configurations of 1-4 cryo-needles at duty cycles of 20%-100% with 1-2.5 cm spacing.
Results |
Analysis of various combinations shows that a central core of ≤−40°C develops at a distance of ~1 cm around the cryo-needles. Temperature increases linearly from this point to the ice ball leading edge (0°C), which is a further ≈1 cm away. Thus, the −40°C isotherm is approximately 1 cm inside the leading edge of the ice ball.
The optimum distance between cryo-needles was 1.5-2 cm, at duty cycle settings of 70%-100%. At distances further apart or with lower duty cycle settings, ice balls either had a central core >−40°C or had an hourglass shape.
Conclusion |
In answer to questions 1-3, tumor length, diameter, and shape will ultimately determine the number of needles and their configuration. However, we propose a conservative distance for cryo-needle placement between 1 and 1.5 cm should be adopted for clinical practice. In answer to question 4, using low duty cycle settings runs the risk of incomplete −40°C isotherm coverage of the tumor, and thus in routine practice we suggest that settings of 70%-100% are most appropriate.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| Financial Disclosure: Uri Arbel, Sonja Foss, and Andrew Zachman are employed by Galil Medical. The remaining authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests. |
|
| Funding Support: Hashim U. Ahmed receives trial funding from Sonacare Inc, AMD SAS, Angiodynamics Inc, Sophiris Inc, and Trod Medical. He receives funding for lectures and attendance at conferences from Sonacare Inc, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, and Sanofi, as well as proctoring fees from Sonacare Inc and Nuada Medical Ltd. This study was run in conjunction with and funded by Galil Medical. |
Vol 91
P. 234-240 - mai 2016 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
