Observational Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 14, 2017; 23(22): 4080-4089
Published online Jun 14, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i22.4080
Table 1 Postoperative ice coverage of different tumor sizes
GroupsTumor diameter (cm)Number of tumors (count)ice coverage (%)
Effective rate
10080-99< 80
Dual-slice group< 3381912781.58%
≥ 327178292.59%
64-slice group< 342309392.86%a
≥ 335267294.29%
Table 2 Comparison of liver perfusion values before and after treatment (mean ± SD)
Tissue64-slice group
Dual-slice group
HAP(mL/min·100 mg)PVP(mL/min·100 mg)HAPI (%)HAP(mL/min·100 mg)PVP(mL/min·100 mg)HAPI (%)
Tumor tissuePre-treatment47.82 ± 16.718.51 ± 3.7184.31 ± 13.2248.42 ± 12.859.16 ± 3.7582.27 ± 14.26
Post-treatment20.21 ± 9.42ac8.13 ± 3.2248.93 ± 9.42ac26.21 ± 9.36a8.53 ± 3.2238.93 ± 9.42a
Adjacent tumor tissuesPre-treatment35.95 ± 15.2547.81 ± 8.5138.92 ± 16.9135.95 ± 15.2545.81 ± 8.5137.92 ± 13.91
Post-treatment21.34 ± 9.95a39.82 ± 14.33a47.01 ± 9.71a20.34 ± 9.95a37.82 ± 14.33a46.01 ± 9.71a
Normal liver tissuePre-treatment25.65 ± 11.8657.90 ± 18.9328.62 ± 11.7224.87 ± 13.4858.93 ± 16.7527.75 ± 14.68
Post-treatment26.02 ± 10.1358.23 ± 16.9427.43 ± 12.2325.89 ± 10.7859.78 ± 13.7626.63 ± 12.25
Table 3 Follow-up observation of treatment effect
GroupsNumber of tumors (n)Treatment effect (%)
Effective rate
Complete ablationMostly ablatedStableProgressive
Dual-slice group6542 (64.62)8 (12.31)10 (15.38)5 (7.69)76.93%
64-slice group7762 (80.52)9 (11.69)4 (5.19)2 (2.60)92.21%
Test value-z = -2.325χ2 = 8.946
P value-0.020.003%
Table 4 Postoperative adverse reactions n (%)
GroupNumber of casesFeverPainSkin frostbiteNausea and vomitingPleural effusionIntraperitoneal hemorrhage
Dual-slice group5633 (53.57)5 (8.93)1 (1.79)5 (8.93)3(5.36)2(3.57)
64-slice group6843 (63.24)7 (10.29)1 (1.47)6 (8.82)00
χ2-1.9250.1060.03205.5083.635
P value-0.1650.7440.8580.9780.0190.057