• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Microwave Ablation with 915 Mhz Vs 2.45 Ghz. What Is the Difference?

Microwave Ablation with 915 Mhz Vs 2.45 Ghz. What Is the Difference?

We present preliminary results from an upcoming prospective, non-randomized comparison of patients with liver tumors treated with either a 915 MHz or a 2.45 GHz microwave ablation system. Results from this institution using a commercially available 915 MHz microwave ablation system (ValleyLab, Boulder, CO) for malignant tumors in the liver have been previously published, using both open or transcutatious antennae. Treatment with a 2.45 GHz system (Microsulis, Denmead, UK) has primarily been available in Europe and, until recently, a transcutaneous antenna was not available. With the arrival of this newer 2.45GHz system in the United States, we are now able to study the unique characteristics of both systems in the research and clinical settings. This study aims to determine differences in the length of time and number of ablations needed to achieve complete tumor thermocoagulation in patients matched for lesion size and type. Efficacy of ablation and size of ablation site were based on follow-up imaging. Any complications were also documented.

Methods. Patients with either a primary or metastatic liver tumor were treated with either a 915 MHz MWA system with three 13 gauge 22cm surgical antennae in a clustered array or a 2.45GHz MWA system with a single 5.6mm diameter surgical antennae. Data for the number of treatments, time of each treatment, and power measured in watts were collected for each lesion. Follow up CT with contrast was performed at 30 days from date of operation and presence or absence of residual tumor documented. Any complications were also documented.

Results. 20 patients with 38 liver lesions received ablation of each lesion with either 915 MHz or 2.45 GHz. The power used for each system was the same for all lesions, 45W for the 915MHz system and 100W for the 2.45 GHz system. For the 915 MHZ system the average primary liver lesion was 3.1cm (range 1.6 to 7) and the average treatment time was 9.5min (range 5-10). For non primary lesions the average size was 2.1cm (range 0.5-5) and treatment time 9.1min (range 5-10). For the 2.45 GHz system the average primary liver lesion was 2.7cm (range 0.8 to 6.5) and the average treatment time was 4.25min (range 3-6). For non primary lesions the average size was 2.2cm (range 0.5-6) and treatment time 4.5 min (range 2-8). For the 915 MHz system treatment time averaged 3.1min/cm primary tumor and 4.3 min/cm non primary tumor. For the 2.45 GHz system treatment time averaged 1.6min/cm primary tumor and 2.1 min/cm non primary tumor. 15 patients (5/11 treated with 2.45 GHz) have had follow up CT and none of those had evidence of residual disease. Complications were a liver abscess in a patient treated with 2.45 GHz and a biloma in the 915 MHz.

Conclusions: As this is a preliminary report a large enough sample size to determine significance has not been obtained. It appears, however, that the data is leaning towards significance in demonstrating the treatment time and number of applications required to treat a liver tumor of a given size and type are less for the 2.45 GHz system than the 915 MHz system. Efficacy and complication rates appear to be similar. This study will continue to evaluate the 2.45 GHz system, including the new transcutaneous 1.8mm diameter antenna.


Session: Poster

Program Number: P439

View Poster

433

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals