English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Intra-procedural contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) has been proposed to evaluate treatment efficacy of thermal ablation. We hypothesized that contrast material delivered concurrently with thermal ablation may become trapped in the ablation zone, and set out to determine whether such an effect would impact ablation visualization. CECT images were acquired during microwave ablation in normal porcine liver with: (A) normal blood perfusion and no iodinated contrast, (B) normal perfusion and iodinated contrast infusion or (C) no blood perfusion and residual iodinated contrast. Changes in CT attenuation were analyzed from before, during and after ablation to evaluate whether contrast was trapped inside of the ablation zone. Visualization was compared between groups using post-ablation contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Attenuation gradients were calculated at the ablation boundary and background to quantitate ablation conspicuity. In Group A, attenuation decreased during ablation due to thermal expansion of tissue water and water vaporization. The ablation zone was difficult to visualize (CNR  =  1.57  ±  0.73, boundary gradient  =  0.7  ±  0.4 HU mm(-1)), leading to ablation diameter underestimation compared to gross pathology. Group B ablations saw attenuation increase, suggesting that iodine was trapped inside the ablation zone. However, because the normally perfused liver increased even more, Group B ablations were more visible than Group A (CNR  =  2.04  ±  0.84, boundary gradient  =  6.3  ±  1.1 HU mm(-1)) and allowed accurate estimation of the ablation zone dimensions compared to gross pathology. Substantial water vaporization led to substantial attenuation changes in Group C, though the ablation zone boundary was not highly visible (boundary gradient  =  3.9  ±  1.1 HU mm(-1)). Our results demonstrate that despite iodinated contrast being trapped in the ablation zone, ablation visibility was highest when contrast is delivered intra-procedurally. Therefore, CECT may be feasible for real-time thermal ablation monitoring.

Analysis of iodinated contrast delivered during thermal ablation: is material trapped in the ablation zone?