Authors: Hyunchul Rhim Youngsun Kim Dongil Choi Hyo K Lim KoWoon Park
Publish Date: 2008/04/04
Volume: 18, Issue: 7, Pages: 1442-1448
Abstract
This study investigated the reasons for some patients requiring two consecutive sessions of percutaneous radiofrequency RF ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma HCC We reviewed our database of 1179 patients 1624 treatments with HCCs treated by percutaneous ultrasound USguided RF ablation over 6 years We retrospectively evaluated 80 patients who required a second session after the first session The medical records and followup CTs were studied We assessed the reasons for the second session and the patient outcomes A second session was required in 80 48 out of 1642 treatments of percutaneous RF ablation for HCC The reason for the second session included technical failure related to the patient or the procedure n=26 technical failure due to residual n=40 newly detected n=11 or missed n=3 tumors found at the immediate followup CT All patients were retreated with a second RFA session the next day Seventyfive 93 of 80 patients achieved complete ablation after the second session The remaining five patients were treated by TACE n=1 additional RFA as second treatment at next admission n=3 or were lost to followup n=1 After 1 month followup 72 patients 96 showed complete ablation after the second session The interventional oncologist should understand the technical reasons for a patient requiring a second session of RF ablation when providing treatment for HCCs and perform careful preprocedural planning to minimize the need for multisession procedures
Keywords: