Percutaneous Ablation of Renal Masses Measuring 3.0 cm and Smaller: Comparative Local Control and Complications After Radiofrequency Ablation and Cryoablation

Abstract

RFA and cryoablation are both effective in the treatment of renal masses measuring 3 cm or smaller. Major complications with either procedure are infrequent.

Percutaneous Tumor Ablation Tools: Microwave, Radiofrequency, or Cryoablation—What Should You Use and Why?

“…There are many ways to successfully ablate a renal tumor, and both RF ablation and cryoablation have proven successful for renal ablation (75). However, the most appropriate modality to use in the kidney depends on tumor size, tumor location, and proximity of vulnerable structures.…”

Cryoablation for Small Renal Masses: Selection Criteria, Complications, and Functional and Oncologic Results

“…The search returned a total of 11 noncomparative CA studies [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] and 8 comparative studies (including 2 metaanalyses) comparing CA methods (LCA vs PCA) or CA with other modalities [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Additional articles were included for assessment of long-term oncologic outcomes [26], functional results [27][28][29][30][31][32], salvage treatment options [33][34][35][36], and cost assessment [37][38][39].…”

Surgical management of renal cell carcinoma: Canadian Kidney Cancer Forum Consensus

“…Despite the lack of long-term recurrence and survival data, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or cryotherapy performed either percutaneously under image guidance or laparoscopically, is a viable management option in patients with tumours less than 3 cm in diameter, with infrequent complications; they do, however, have a slightly higher risk of local recurrence compared to PN. [72][73][74] Currently, patients considered for ablative approaches are those with severe medical comorbidities precluding surgical extirpation, or in patients with multiple bilateral lesions, possibly due to underlying genetic predispositions (Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome, Von Hippel-Lindau disease). Several technologies and approaches are differentially used with success, although long-term oncologic outcomes are not yet available.…”