Mass
Bilali Habeş GÜMÜŞ1, Ali Can ALBAZ1, Fatih DÜZGÜN2, Oktay ÜÇER1, Gökhan
TEMELTAŞ1, Talha
MÜEZZİNOĞLU1, Serdar TARHAN2
1 Department of Urology, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Faculty of
Medicine, Manisa, Turkey
2 Department of Radiology, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Faculty of
Medicine, Manisa, Turkey
Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcome of ablation
therapy in our clinic
for the treatment of patients with small renal mass
Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the technic and
follow-up data of 30
patients with 36 tumors who underwent Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) and
Microwave
Ablation (MWA) in our clinic. Demographic data, ablation type, tumor
characteristics,
peroperative and postoperative complications and treatment success of
the patients were
evaluated.
Results: A total of 36 tumors who underwent ablation treatments, 23 were
treated with RFA,
13 with MWA. The mean tumor size was 28.9 ± 6.92 mm in RFA and 29.3 ±
7.70 mm in
MWA. The mean follow-up period was 49.6 ± 24.7 months in patients with
RFA and mean
follow-up was 16 ± 8,05 months in MWA treatments. The overall success in
MWA
administration was calculated as 76.9%, while the overall success in
RFA was 80%.
Conclusion: Long-term oncologic efficacy of RFA appears to be successful
in the treatment of
T1a renal carcinomas. Further studies can be conducted to elucidate the
influence of MWA on
long-term oncological outcomes.
Keywords: Minimal invasive surgery, renal cell cancer, radiofrequency
ablation, thermal
ablation, tumor ablation
What is already known about this topic? What does this article add?
Urology guidelines offer active surveillance, radiofrequency ablation
and cryoablation to elderly and comorbid patients with small renal
masses. However, there is no recommendation for MWA. When we revieweded
the literature, there was no comprehensive study comparing RFA and MWA.
In this article, we discussed the differences of these methods.