MATERIAL AND METHODS: The RFA of a spherical tumor of 2.0 cm diameter along with 0.5 cm clinical safety margin was simulated using Finite Element Analysis software. A total of 86 points inside one-eighth of the tumor volume along the axial, sagittal and coronal planes were selected as the target sites for electrode-tip placement. The angle of the electrode insertion in both craniocaudal and orbital planes ranged from -90° to +90° with 30° increment. The RFA electrode was simulated to pass through the target site at different angles in combination of both craniocaudal and orbital planes before being advanced to the edge of the tumor.
RESULTS: Complete tumor ablation was observed whenever the electrode-tip penetrated through the epicenter of the tumor regardless of the angles of electrode insertion in both craniocaudal and orbital planes. Complete tumor ablation can also be achieved by placing the electrode-tip at several optimal sites and angles.
CONCLUSIONS: Identification of the tumor epicenter on the central slice of the axial images is essential to enhance the success rate of complete tumor ablation during RFA procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine phantoms were fabricated with different bifurcation angles ranging from 55.3° to 134.5°. General X-ray and CCTA were employed to acquire 2D and 3D images of the bifurcation phantoms, respectively. Multiplanar reformation (MPR) and volume rendering technique (VRT) were used to measure the bifurcation angle between the left anterior descending (LAD) and left circumflex arteries (LCx). The measured angles were compared with the true values to determine the accuracy of each measurement technique. Inter-observer variability was evaluated. The two techniques were further applied on 50 clinical CCTA cases to verify its clinical value.
RESULTS: In the phantom setting, the mean absolute differences calculated between the true and measured angles by MPR and VRT were 2.4°±2.2° and 3.8°±2.9°, respectively. Strong correlation was found between the true and measured bifurcation angles. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between the bifurcation angles measured using either technique. In clinical settings, large difference of 12.0°±10.6° was found between the two techniques.
CONCLUSION: In the phantom setting, both techniques demonstrated a significant correlation to the true bifurcation angle. Despite the lack of agreement of the two techniques in the clinical context, our findings in phantoms suggest that MPR should be preferred to VRT for the measurement of coronary bifurcation angle by CCTA.