Safety and Effectiveness of Track Cauterization for Lung Cryoablation

Abstract

PurposeTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of track cauterization for lung cryoablation through comparison of postprocedural adverse event (AE) rates. Materials and MethodsFifty-nine patients who underwent 164 percutaneous lung cryoablation procedures between 2013 and 2018 were included in this retrospective study. The study cohort was subdivided by whether track cauterization was conducted or not at the end of the procedure. The study cohort was also subdivided by the number of probes (1–2 probes vs 3–4 probes). Postablation AE rates were assessed by immediate and delayed (at 1 month or later) AEs, pneumothorax, hemothorax, pleural effusion, and whether intervention was required. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to compare differences in AE rates. ResultsPatients who underwent procedures with track cautery were 2.6 times less likely to exhibit pleural effusion (P = .017). Patients who underwent procedures conducted with a higher number of probes were 3.8 times more likely to receive interventions (P < .001), 1.6 times more likely to experience pneumothorax (P = .037), and 2.1 times more likely to experience pleural effusion (P = .003). History of lung surgery, increased number of probes, size of the probe, and absence of track cautery were noted to be significant predictors of AEs and need for interventions (all P < .05). ConclusionsTrack cauterization in lung cryoablation was proven to reduce pleural effusion, but no difference in pneumothorax or delayed AEs was noted. The use of fewer probes was associated with a lower rate of AEs.