Basic Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 28, 2017; 23(12): 2141-2148
Published online Mar 28, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i12.2141
Table 1 Comparison of thermal injury to the diaphragm among the three groups (n = 8)
Diaphragmatic injuryGel group,Saline group,Control group,P value
n = 8n = 8n = 8
Injury rate05%8%
Size in cm00.9 ± 0.7a1.7 ± 0.3bc0.0011
Grade, score00.6 ± 1.1d1.8 ± 0.7ef0.0011
Table 2 Comparison of the size of microwave ablation zones among the three groups (n = 8)
Gel groupSaline groupControl groupP value
Dimension 1 in cm2.06 ± 0.382.14 ± 0.152.19 ± 0.14
Dimension 2 in cm1.28 ± 0.181.26 ± 0.221.38 ± 0.14
Dimension 3 in cm1.24 ± 0.181.23 ± 0.221.34 ± 0.16
Volume in cm31.76 ± 0.661.75 ± 0.542.11 ± 0.430.353
Table 3 Comparison of hepatic and renal functions before and after microwave ablation (n = 8)
IndicatorBaselinePostablation
P value
Day 3Day 7
ALT in U/L45.38 ± 5.2441.57 ± 3.9641.50 ± 4.140.166
AST in U/L50.79 ± 3.9547.25 ± 3.2845.63 ± 5.100.062
BUN in mmol/L7.50 ± 0.907.14 ± 1.107.12 ± 1.050.708
Cr in μmol/L66.24 ± 4.1462.77 ± 7.1662.04 ± 3.390.244