Copyright
©2012 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 7, 2012; 18(41): 5870-5878
Published online Nov 7, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i41.5870
Published online Nov 7, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i41.5870
Impedance subtype | Maximum tumor diameter (mm)1 | ICGR 15 (%)1 | Tumor location(segments 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)2 |
A | 20.3± 6.0 | 17.8 ± 13.9 | (0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1) |
B | 20.4 ± 5.3 | 29.8 ± 10.7a | (1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1) |
C | 21.2 ± 8.1 | 19.9 ± 11.1 | (0,3,3,3,5,3,3,6) |
D | 22.7 ± 6.7 | 24.2 ± 17.9 | (0,2,8,4,8,6,4,11) |
E | 22.7 ± 6.3 | 21.4 ± 10.2 | (1,2,1,2,1,3,8,5) |
F | 22.3 ± 7.8 | 24.1 ± 15.9 | (1,1,4,1,3,5,3,3) |
G | 20.9 ± 8.1 | 20.2 ± 14.0 | (0,1,5,2,2,4,4,6) |
- Citation: Iida H, Aihara T, Ikuta S, Yamanaka N. Effectiveness of impedance monitoring during radiofrequency ablation for predicting popping. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18(41): 5870-5878
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v18/i41/5870.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v18.i41.5870