Sir, We have read with interest the article by Lee et al. [1]. The authors tried to compare two radiofrequency bipolar systems: the Berchtold system with open-perfused electrodes (bipolar saline-enhanced electrodes) and the Radionics system with cooled-wet electrodes in bipolar mode. We would like to congratulate the authors for their experimental design and excellent results. However, the work raises some concerns. First of all, the accumulated energy output was 87,555.1±86,787 Ws (joules) for the open-perfused electrode group when the maximum power output for the generator was 60 W for 20 min (that means a maximum energy output of 72,000 Ws per experience). Furthermore, the huge variability expressed by the standard deviation in output energy deposition means that in some cases, less than 1,000 Ws were deposited, while in other cases more than two times the maximum output energy was employed. Actually, on the basis of the authors’ explanation, the main reason for the reduced ablation dimension in the open-perfused group compared with the cooled-wet group is the premature rise of the impedance over 700 Ω. This premature roll-off of the impedance is related to the more intense desiccation and charring of the tissues in a bipolar mode compared with the monopolar configuration caused by a higher current deposition in the small amount of tissue interposed between the electrodes, when no diversion of the heat occurs. We agree with this latest statement, and in our experiences we adapted the power to the global distance to the electrodes in order to keep the impedance low, as is also discussed in [2]. For example, for a 7-cm distance of the electrodes, we employ advantageously less than 40 W with more perfusion of saline for an in vivo application in a similar configuration [3], whereas Lee et al. employ 60 W for only a 3-cm separation between the electrodes with less perfusion of saline. The power algorithm the authors uses is usually employed for a monopolar configuration when more diversion of heat occurs, but in a bipolar setting one may overheat the tissue prematurely. This can account for the premature roll-off in the authors’ open-perfused group and for their suboptimal employ of an open-perfused electrode. Secondly, in the authors’ bipolar configuration the electrodes must be placed parallel, as we previously considered and abandoned [4, 5], because, as the authors state, the insertion of both electrodes encompassing the tumor could be difficult. In the actual configuration we have integrated both electrodes in one needle, making electrode placement more accurate and safe [3]. Lee et al. state that one of the axes of the coagulation area we created An author’s reply to this letter is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2650-z.
Read full abstract