Stent-based and catheter-based endobiliary radiofrequency ablation for malignant biliary obstruction: an ex-vivo comparative study
Rattachement africain : kr, cn. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Endobiliary radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is used as an adjunct therapy to improve local tumor control and stent patency; however, catheter-based RFA may result in non-uniform ablation in curved or tortuous ducts because of incomplete electrode-wall contact. This study compared stent-based electrodes with conventional catheter-based electrodes using a curved endoluminal phantom and ex-vivo porcine liver tissue. In the curved phantom, the catheter-based electrode showed curvature-dependent asymmetry, with higher macroscopic ablation grades at the lesser curvature than at the greater curvature (2.1 ± 0.73 vs. 1.1 ± 0.73; p = 0.009). In contrast, the use of the stent-based electrode resulted in more uniform ablation regardless of the curvature (2.2 ± 0.42 vs. 2.3 ± 0.48; p = 0.624). The stent-based electrode generated larger macroscopic ablation zones than the catheter-based electrode, with greater histological central and peripheral zones (all p < 0.001). The stent-based endobiliary RFA system demonstrated larger and more uniform ablation zones compared with the catheter-based system in ex-vivo and phantom models. Stent-based electrodes may overcome key limitations of catheter-based electrodes, particularly in anatomically curved or tortuous ducts, by improving electrode-tissue contact and ablation uniformity.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Stent-based and catheter-based endobiliary radiofrequency ablation for malignant biliary obstruction: an ex-vivo comparative study
- Date Crossref
- 20/07/2026
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.