Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online before print August 26, 2005, 10.1148/radiol.2371040829

(Radiology 2005;237:366.)

A more recent version of this article appeared on October 1, 2005
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2371040829v1
237/1/366    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Allaf, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Solomon, S. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Allaf, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Solomon, S. B.
© RSNA, 2005

Vascular and Interventional Radiology

Pain Control Requirements for Percutaneous Ablation of Renal Tumors: Cryoablation versus Radiofrequency Ablation—Initial Observations1

Mohamad E. Allaf, MD, Ioannis M. Varkarakis, MD, PhD, Sam B. Bhayani, MD, Takeshi Inagaki, MD, Louis R. Kavoussi, MD and Stephen B. Solomon, MD

1 From the Brady Urological Institute, Department of Urology (M.E.A., I.M.V., S.B.B., T.I., L.R.K., S.B.S.) and the Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology (S.B.S.), the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md 21287. Received May 10, 2004; revision requested July 21; final revision received November 23; accepted December 23. Address correspondence to S.B.S., Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 (e-mail: solomons{at}mskcc.org).

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the pain control requirements of patients undergoing computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous radiofrequency (RF) ablation with those of patients undergoing CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation of small (≤4-cm) renal tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was HIPAA compliant and received institutional review board exemption; informed consent was not required. Medical and procedure records of patients who underwent RF ablation and cryoablation of renal tumors from June 19, 2003, to February 28, 2004, were retrospectively reviewed for clinical data, tumor characteristics, and anesthesia information. During the study period, 10 men (mean age, 66.5 years) underwent cryoablation of 11 renal lesions, and 14 patients (11 men, four women; mean age, 68.1 years) underwent RF ablation of 15 renal tumors. Analgesic and sedative requirements during the procedure were compared. Standard anesthesia consisted of 5 mL of 1% lidocaine injected locally, and conscious sedation consisted of 50 µg of fentanyl and 1 mg of midazolam administered intravenously. The Fisher exact test and Student t test were used to compare clinical factors and drug requirements between the two groups.

RESULTS: There was no difference in terms of patient demographics, tumor diameter, or distribution of central versus noncentral lesions between the two groups. Cryoablation was associated with a significantly lower dose of fentanyl (165.0 µg [RF group] vs 75.0 µg [cryoablation group]; P < .001) and midazolam (2.9 mg [RF group] vs 1.6 mg [cryoablation group]; P = .026). In the RF group, one patient required general anesthesia, one patient required supplemental narcotics (5 mg of oxycodone) and sedatives (1 mg lorezapam), and one patient became apneic for a brief interval after receiving additional narcotics for pain during the procedure. An additional RF session was terminated early in one patient because of pain, and further medication could not be administered owing to bradycardia. No patients in the cryoablation group required any additional or alternate anesthetics.

CONCLUSION: Image-guided percutaneous cryoablation of small (≤4-cm) renal lesions appears to require less analgesia than RF ablation. Prospective trials with validated pain scales are needed to examine this further.

© RSNA, 2005




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. L. Hinshaw, A. M. Shadid, S. Y. Nakada, S. P. Hedican, T. C. Winter III, and F. T. Lee Jr.
Comparison of Percutaneous and Laparoscopic Cryoablation for the Treatment of Solid Renal Masses
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2008; 191(4): 1159 - 1168.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
T. D. Atwell, M. A. Farrell, M. R. Callstrom, J. W. Charboneau, B. C. Leibovich, D. E. Patterson, G. K. Chow, and M. L. Blute
Percutaneous Cryoablation of 40 Solid Renal Tumors with US Guidance and CT Monitoring: Initial Experience
Radiology, April 1, 2007; 243(1): 276 - 283.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2005 by the Radiological Society of North America.