CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 41, Issue 10, pp 1630–1631 | Cite as

Could Monopolar Mode be a Suitable Strategy of Energy Deposition for Performing No-Touch Radiofrequency Ablation of Liver Tumor ≤ 5 cm?

  • Olivier Seror
  • Arnaud Hocquelet
  • Olivier Sutter
Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

We read with great interest the study by Chang et al. [1]. Pursuing their considerable efforts in bringing scientific evidence of usefulness of no-touch ablation concept for the treatment of liver tumors [2, 3], they compared no-touch radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of patients bearing hepatocellular carcinoma up 5 cm in size, using multi-monopolar (mM) versus multi-bipolar (mB) modes. While multi-bipolar mode required less number of ablations within shorter overall ablation times, they concluded that either mode could be favorably used for no-touch ablation of HCCs ≤ 5 cm because local tumor progression (LTP)-free survival rates were comparable in both groups.

In our opinion, this apparent cautious conclusion is questionable regarding their results of preclinical and clinical studies. Although difference of LTP rates between the two groups was not statically significant, as authors mentioned, due to retrospective design of the study they did not emitted hypothesis and...


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Olivier Seror is consultant for Olympus/Celon Company, Angiodynamics, General Electric Healthcare Systems and Bayer Healthcare.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain studies with human participants for animals by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Chang W, Lee JM, Lee DH, Yoon JH, Kim YJ, Yoon JH, et al. Comparison of switching bipolar ablation with multiple cooled wet electrodes and switching monopolar ablation with separable clustered electrode in treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(2):e0192173. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang W, Lee JM, Lee SM, Han JK. No-touch radiofrequency ablation: a comparison of switching bipolar and switching monopolar ablation in ex vivo bovine liver. Korean J Radiol. 2017;18(2):279–88. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seror O, Sutter O. RE: should we use a monopolar or bipolar mode for performing no-touch radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors? Clinical practice might have already resolved the matter once and for all. Korean J Radiol. 2017;18(4):749–52. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seror O. Ablative therapies: advantages and disadvantages of radiofrequency, cryotherapy, microwave and electroporation methods, or how to choose the right method for an individual patient? Diagn Interv Imaging. 2015;96(6):617–24. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clasen S, Rempp H, Schmidt D, Schraml C, Hoffmann R, Claussen CD, et al. Multipolar radiofrequency ablation using internally cooled electrodes in ex vivo bovine liver: correlation between volume of coagulation and amount of applied energy. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(1):111–3. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hocquelet A, Aube C, Rode A, Cartier V, Sutter O, Manichon AF, et al. Comparison of no-touch multi-bipolar vs. monopolar radiofrequency ablation for small HCC. J Hepatol. 2017;66(1):67–74. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burdio F, Navarro A, Sousa R, Burdio JM, Guemes A, Gonzalez A, et al. Evolving technology in bipolar perfused radiofrequency ablation: assessment of efficacy, predictability and safety in a pig liver model. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(8):1826–34. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denys AL, De Baere T, Kuoch V, Dupas B, Chevallier P, Madoff DC, et al. Radio-frequency tissue ablation of the liver: in vivo and ex vivo experiments with four different systems. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(10):2346–52. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seror O, N’Kontchou G, Tin-Tin-Htar M, Barrucand C, Ganne N, Coderc E, et al. Radiofrequency ablation with internally cooled versus perfused electrodes for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19(5):718–24. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivier Seror
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Arnaud Hocquelet
    • 4
  • Olivier Sutter
    • 1
  1. 1.Service de Radiologie de l’Hôpital Jean VerdierHôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Seine-Saint-Denis, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de ParisBondyFrance
  2. 2.Unité Mixte de Recherche 1162, Génomique Fonctionnelle des Tumeurs SolidesInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleParisFrance
  3. 3.Unité de Formation et de Recherche Santé Médecine et Biologie HumaineUniversité Paris 13, Communauté d’Universités et Etablissements Sorbonne Paris CitéBobignyFrance
  4. 4.Department of Radiology and Interventional RadiologyCentre Hospitalier Universitaire VaudoisLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations