Edward Yang;Urja Patel;Michael Anthony Barry;Alistair McEwan;Pierre C Qian
{"title":"Microwave Antenna Design for Cardiovascular Applications: A Comparison Between a Balanced and Unbalanced Microwave Ablation Antenna","authors":"Edward Yang;Urja Patel;Michael Anthony Barry;Alistair McEwan;Pierre C Qian","doi":"10.1109/JERM.2023.3322565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<italic>Objective:</i>\n To determine whether an irrigatedunbalanced antenna can create larger ablations than a conventional microwave antenna without overheating. \n<italic>Method:</i>\n The microwave and ablation characteristics of a previously published multi-ring slot array (MRSA) ablation antenna, optimized for intravascular environments, were compared with a dielectric-insulated monopole antenna with no matching or balancing elements, creating the unbalanced monopole antenna. The two antennae were numerically simulated in an intravascular environment and tested inside a gel phantom for five repetitions for comparison. Each antenna assembly was \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\text{900 mm}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n long, with a \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\text{2.45 GHz}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n ablatingfrequency, with a microwave input power of \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\text{60 W}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n for \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\text{120 s}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n via a patient cable. \n<italic>Results:</i>\n Gel experiments were consistent with numerical simulations, with the unbalanced monopole antenna possessing better microwave and ablative characteristics than the MRSA in a biological environment. Microwave input power to the device connector was attenuated from \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\text{60 W}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n to \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\text{40 W}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n due to patient cable losses. Removing matching elements improved input impedance at the test plane (Real, 52.20 \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\pm$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$5.90 \\;\\Omega$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n vs. 74.22 \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\pm$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$43.25 \\;\\Omega$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n, p = 0.05648; Imaginary, −23.50 \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\pm$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$2.63 \\;\\Omega$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n vs. 14.92 \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\pm$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$51.10 \\;\\Omega$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n, p = 0.1333) and the return loss (−12.79 \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\pm$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\text{0.45 dB}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n vs. 6.51 \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\pm$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\text{0.25 dB}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n, p = \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$2.521 \\times 10^{-7}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n). The unbalanced monopole antenna created wide (18.28 \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\pm$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\text{0.57 mm}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n vs. 13.38 \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\pm$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\text{0.60 mm}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n, p = \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$2.482 \\times 10^{-5}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n) and deeper (11.87 \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\pm$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\text{0.88 mm}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n vs. 9.41 \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\pm$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$\\text{0.98 mm}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n, p = \n<inline-formula><tex-math>$1.616 \\times 10^{-2}$</tex-math></inline-formula>\n) ablation lesions than the MRSA. \n<italic>Clinical Impact:</i>\n Removing elements from an MRSA created an unbalanced monopole antenna that creates larger ablation lesions with improved microwave characteristics.","PeriodicalId":29955,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Journal of Electromagnetics RF and Microwaves in Medicine and Biology","volume":"7 4","pages":"450-456"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Journal of Electromagnetics RF and Microwaves in Medicine and Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10297568/","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective:
To determine whether an irrigatedunbalanced antenna can create larger ablations than a conventional microwave antenna without overheating.
Method:
The microwave and ablation characteristics of a previously published multi-ring slot array (MRSA) ablation antenna, optimized for intravascular environments, were compared with a dielectric-insulated monopole antenna with no matching or balancing elements, creating the unbalanced monopole antenna. The two antennae were numerically simulated in an intravascular environment and tested inside a gel phantom for five repetitions for comparison. Each antenna assembly was
$\text{900 mm}$
long, with a
$\text{2.45 GHz}$
ablatingfrequency, with a microwave input power of
$\text{60 W}$
for
$\text{120 s}$
via a patient cable.
Results:
Gel experiments were consistent with numerical simulations, with the unbalanced monopole antenna possessing better microwave and ablative characteristics than the MRSA in a biological environment. Microwave input power to the device connector was attenuated from
$\text{60 W}$
to
$\text{40 W}$
due to patient cable losses. Removing matching elements improved input impedance at the test plane (Real, 52.20
$\pm$$5.90 \;\Omega$
vs. 74.22
$\pm$$43.25 \;\Omega$
, p = 0.05648; Imaginary, −23.50
$\pm$$2.63 \;\Omega$
vs. 14.92
$\pm$$51.10 \;\Omega$
, p = 0.1333) and the return loss (−12.79
$\pm$$\text{0.45 dB}$
vs. 6.51
$\pm$$\text{0.25 dB}$
, p =
$2.521 \times 10^{-7}$
). The unbalanced monopole antenna created wide (18.28
$\pm$$\text{0.57 mm}$
vs. 13.38
$\pm$$\text{0.60 mm}$
, p =
$2.482 \times 10^{-5}$
) and deeper (11.87
$\pm$$\text{0.88 mm}$
vs. 9.41
$\pm$$\text{0.98 mm}$
, p =
$1.616 \times 10^{-2}$
) ablation lesions than the MRSA.
Clinical Impact:
Removing elements from an MRSA created an unbalanced monopole antenna that creates larger ablation lesions with improved microwave characteristics.