ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
Electrodes of radiofrequency ablation for malignant lung tumors: a narrative review of advances, applications, and prospects.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is one of the most widely adopted thermal ablation modalities for patients with inoperable malignant lung tumors, including primary lung cancer and pulmonary metastases. Compared with other ablation techniques such as microwave and cryoablation, RFA has a longer clinical accumulation and technical evolution, and its therapeutic effect relies primarily on the delivery of thermal energy within tissues, placing higher demands on thermal field distribution. As the core energy-conducting component of RFA system, the radiofrequency (RF) electrode significantly affects the morphology and extent of the ablation zone. Notably, owing to the lungs' unique anatomical architecture, precise deployment of such devices is crucial to ensure effective ablation and minimize potential complications. This study focuses on the application and challenges of RF electrodes in pulmonary ablation and highlights the prospective development of RF electrode technology. Methods: This study conducted a review by searching through databases including PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Google Scholar. Studies focusing on the structure, design, or ablation performance of RF electrodes in malignant lung tumors were selected. Based on these findings, a narrative review was generated. Key Content and Findings: RF electrodes available for pulmonary ablation can be mainly classified into monopolar, bipolar, and multipolar electrodes. And the optimized electrode designs-such as cooling, expandable, or bipolar configurations-can better adapt to tumors of different morphologies and sizes by improving the tissue-electrode coupling and energy deposition, enabling larger, more controllable ablation zone than conventional designs. In the future, RF electrode technology will be further integrated with structural and functional optimization, combination therapy strategies (such as targeted drug delivery), and precise intelligent control system to offer stronger effectiveness and personalized minimally invasive treatment strategies to lung tumor patients. Conclusions: The geometric and conductive characteristics of RF electrodes have been proven to significantly influence the effectiveness and safety of RFA for lung tumors. Future developments should focus on optimizing electrode configuration and refining energy delivery strategies, which are crucial for achieving controllable and uniform ablation zones in lung tumors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.