BackgroundOur aim was to perform a comparison of three current microwave ablation (MWA) systems widely used for laparoscopic liver ablations in terms of ablation kinetics and geometry of ablation zones.MethodsThis was a retrospective, institutional review board‐approved study comparing Emprint, Emprint HP, and NeuWave systems for laparoscopic liver ablation. Analyses were performed via Mann−Whitney U and χ2 tests. Continuous data are presented as median (interquartile range).ResultsFor Emprint, Emprint HP, and NeuWave groups, tumor size was 1.16 (0.8), 1.21 (0.7), and 1.27 (0.9) cm (p = 0.54). Ablation time per lesion was 7 (6), 4 (2.8), and 4 (3.3) min (p < 0.0001), yielding similar ablation zone volumes and margins. The time to first ablation bubble was 1 (0.13), 1.5 (0.85), and 0.75 (0.5) min, and total ablation times were 7 (4.4), 4 (2), and 3.5 (2.8) min (p < 0.0001). The roundness index A, B, and transverse were 0.94, 0.98, and 0.79; 0.95, 0.95, and 0.78; and 1.02, 0.95, and 0.96.ConclusionsAlthough a saline‐cooling system with Emprint system allowed for larger diameter spherical ablation zones to be created, it led to decreased efficiency compared to the CO2‐cooled NeuWave system, which exposes the active antenna directly to tissue. Increased power delivered by Emprint HP improved the efficiency of saline‐cooled design, as demonstrated by faster ablation times.

中文翻译：

---

三种不同微波系统腹腔镜肝脏肿瘤消融术的比较

背景我们的目的是对当前广泛用于腹腔镜肝脏消融的三种微波消融 (MWA) 系统在消融动力学和消融区域的几何形状方面进行比较。方法这是一项经机构审查委员会批准的回顾性研究，比较了 Emprint、Emprint HP、用于腹腔镜肝脏消融术的 NeuWave 系统。通过 Mann−Whitney 进行分析U和χ2测试。连续数据以中位数（四分位距）表示。结果对于 Emprint、Emprint HP 和 NeuWave 组，肿瘤大小分别为 1.16 (0.8)、1.21 (0.7) 和 1.27 (0.9) cm（p= 0.54）。每个病灶的消融时间为 7 (6)、4 (2.8) 和 4 (3.3) 分钟（p< 0.0001)，产生相似的消融区体积和边缘。第一次消融气泡的时间为 1 (0.13)、1.5 (0.85) 和 0.75 (0.5) 分钟，总消融时间为 7 (4.4)、4 (2) 和 3.5 (2.8) 分钟（p< 0.0001)。圆度指数A、B、横向分别为0.94、0.98、0.79；0.95、0.95 和 0.78；和 1.02、0.95 和 0.96。结论虽然带有 Emprint 系统的盐水冷却系统可以创建更大直径的球形消融区域，但与 CO 相比，它导致效率降低2‐冷却 NeuWave 系统，将有源天线直接暴露于组织。Emprint HP 提供的功率增加，提高了盐水冷却设计的效率，更快的消融时间就证明了这一点。