A comparison of ultrasound guided with assisted technologies versus computed tomography guided percutaneous thermal ablation for liver cancer at hepatic dome on safety and short-term efficacy
10.3760/cma.j.cn113884-20191230-00428
- VernacularTitle:超声引导联合辅助技术与CT引导经皮热消融治疗邻近膈顶肝癌的安全性及近期疗效
- Author:
Delin LIU
1
;
Bin HUANG
;
Xixi SUN
;
Zixiang KONG
Author Information
1. 浙江中医药大学附属西溪医院 杭州市西溪医院超声科，杭州 310023
- From:
Chinese Journal of Hepatobiliary Surgery
2020;26(10):757-761
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the safety and short-term efficacy of percutaneous thermal ablation for liver cancer at hepatic dome guided by ultrasound with assisted technologies or computed tomography.Methods:Patients who underwent thermal ablation of liver cancer at hepatic dome from January 2016 to October 2019 in the Xixi Hospital affiliated to Zhejiang Chinese Medical University were studied. Using the different guidance methods, the patients were divided into the ultrasound guidance combined with assisted technologies group (the ultrasound guided group) and the CT guided group. Assisted technologies included contrast-enhanced ultrasound, fusion imaging and artificial ascites. The complications during and within one week of ablation were recorded to compare the safety between the two guidance methods. One month after ablation, contrast-enhanced CT or contrast-enhanced MRI was performed to evaluate the short-term efficacy.Results:Of 52 patients who were included in the study, 39 had no previous treatment while 13 had recurrent liver cancer (7 underwent previous surgical resection and 6 thermal ablation). There were 41 males and 11 females, age ranged from 38.0 to 76.0 (57.3±10.0) years. The tumor size was 12.0 to 46.0 (30.7±8.8) mm. Of the 34 patients in the ultrasound guided group, the age ranged from 38.0 to 73.0 (56.6±10.2) years, and the tumor size ranged from 17.0 to 46.0 (30.6±8.7) mm. Of the 18 patients in the CT guided group, the age ranged from 39.0 to 76.0 (58.1±9.8) years, and the tumor size ranged from 12.0 to 45.0 (30.9±9.2) mm. There were no significant differences in age and tumor size between the two groups ( P>0.05). During and within one week of ablation, 3 patients developed hydrothorax in the ultrasound guided group and 8 patients developed hydrothorax, and 7 patients pneumothorax in the CT guided group. The difference between the two groups was significant ( P<0.05). All complications were successfully treated with conservative treatment. One month after ablation, the complete ablation rate was 91.2% (31/34) in the ultrasound guided group and 88.9% (16/18) in the CT guided group. There was no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05). Conclusion:The two methods of guidance resulted in similar short-term efficacy after thermal ablation for liver cancer at hepatic dome. Compared with computed tomography guidance, ultrasound guidance with assisted technologies significantly reduced the incidence of thoracic complication rates.
