Phrenic Nerve Injury after Radiofrequency Ablation of Lung Tumors: Retrospective Evaluation of the Incidence and Risk Factors

• Published in: Journal of vascular and interventional radiology Vol. 23; no. 6; pp. 780 - 785
• Main Authors: Matsui, Yusuke, MD, Hiraki, Takao, MD, Gobara, Hideo, MD, Uka, Mayu, MD, Masaoka, Yoshihisa, MD, Tada, Akihiro, MD, Toyooka, Shinichi, MD, Mitsuhashi, Toshiharu, MD, Mimura, Hidefumi, MD, Kanazawa, Susumu, MD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.06.2012
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Catheter Ablation - adverse effects; Female; Humans; Incidence; Japan - epidemiology; Logistic Models; Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Lung Neoplasms - pathology; Lung Neoplasms - surgery; Male; Middle Aged; Multivariate Analysis; Odds Ratio; Peripheral Nerve Injuries - diagnostic imaging; Peripheral Nerve Injuries - epidemiology; Phrenic Nerve - diagnostic imaging; Phrenic Nerve - injuries; Radiology; Retrospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Tumor Burden; OR; vital capacity; forced expiratory volume at 1 second; RF; radiofrequency; FEV1.0; odds ratio; VC
• ISSN: 1051-0443; 1535-7732
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2012.02.014

Abstract Purpose To retrospectively investigate the incidence of and risk factors for phrenic nerve injury after radiofrequency (RF) ablation of lung tumors. Materials and Methods The study included 814 RF ablation procedures of lung tumors. To evaluate the development of phrenic nerve injury, chest radiographs obtained before and after the procedure were examined. Phrenic nerve injury was assumed to have developed if the diaphragmatic level was elevated after the procedure. To identify risk factors for phrenic nerve injury, multiple variables were compared between cases of phrenic nerve injury and randomly selected controls by using univariate analyses. Multivariate analysis was then performed to identify independent risk factors. Results Evaluation of phrenic nerve injury from chest radiographs was possible after 786 procedures. Evidence of phrenic nerve injury developed after 10 cases (1.3%). Univariate analysis revealed that larger tumor size (≥ 20 mm; P = .014), proximity of the phrenic nerve to the tumor (< 10 mm; P < .001), the use of larger electrodes (array diameter or noninsulated tip length ≥ 3 cm; P = .001), and higher maximum power applied during ablation (≥ 100 W; P < .001) were significantly associated with the development of phrenic nerve injury. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the proximity of the phrenic nerve to the tumor (< 10 mm; P < .001) was a significant independent risk factor. Conclusions The incidence of phrenic nerve injury after RF ablation was 1.3%. The proximity of the phrenic nerve to the tumor was an independent risk factor for phrenic nerve injury.