TABLE 3:

Effect of Artificial Ascites

	Ablation Abutting Diaphragm
Characteristic	No Fluid (n = 18)	Fluid (n = 37)	Control (n= 15)	p
Tumor size (cm)	2.5 ± 1.7	2.6 ± 1.3	2.5 ± 1.0	0.7
Distance from tumor to diaphragm (mm)	6.3 ± 7.5	3.7 ± 5.5	41.5 ± 20.4	< 0.001
Displacement distance (mm)	0	3.8 ± 4.9	0	< 0.001
Ablation zone size (cm)	4.4 ± 1.4	4.3 ± 1.2	3.6 ± 0.8	0.1
Length of ablation zone abutting capsule (cm)	3.5 ± 1.4	3.6 ± 1.4	0	< 0.001
Ablation time (min)	5.5 ± 1.9	7.0 ± 3.3	5.5 ± 2.5	0.2
Ablation power (W)	73.9 ± 23.2	76.1 ± 21.2	79.3 ± 19.6	0.2
No. of diaphragmatic hernias	0	0	0
Diaphragm thickness before ablation (mm)	3.3 ± 1.1	3.0 ± 1.2	3.0 ± 0.5	0.4
Diaphragm thickness immediately after ablation (mm)	3.7 ± 1.3	4.1 ± 2.1	3.1 ± 0.5	0.5
Patients with shoulder pain, no. (%)	3 (16.7)	7 (18.9)	0 (0)	0.3
Average pain score	3.0 ± 2.3	2.8 ± 2.0	2.4 ± 1.2	0.7
Initial pain score	3.9 ± 2.7	3.3 ± 3.1	3.1 ± 2.2	0.7
Local tumor progression, no. (%)	1 (5.6)	2 (5.4)	0 (0)	1
Imaging follow-up (mo)	11.8 ± 7.4	10.8 ± 8.3	14.1 ± 8.5	0.2

Note—Except where noted otherwise, data are mean ± SD. Peripheral liver lesions are subdivided according to the use of artificial ascites.