Table 4. Comparison of RFA, HIFU and MWA.
| RFA | HIFU | MWA | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physics | Electric current | Ultrasound | Electromagnetic |
| Frequency of vibration | 400–500 KHz | 0.8–3.5 MHz | >900 MHz |
| Temperature of ablation (degree Celsius) | 50–70 | ~60 | Up to 120–150 |
| Need of ground pad | Yes | No | No |
| Heat Sink effect | Yes | Minimal | Minimal |
| Homogeneity of heat distribution | Uneven due to charring effect | Focused ablation | Even distribution of heat energy |
| Size limit | 3–4 cm | 3 cm | 5 cm |
| Procedure time | Medium (12 mins/cycle) | Long (1–2 hours per tumor) | Short (few minutes) |
| Mode of anesthesia | LA/GA | Only GA | LA/GA |
| Ascites | Contraindicated | Not contraindicated | contraindicated |
| Specific complication | Bile duct injury | Skin necrosis | Similar to RFA |
| Diaphragmatic injury | Pleuritic | ||
| Visceral injury | Pleural effusion | ||
| Hepatic hematoma | Rib fracture | ||
| Liver abscess | Hepatic hematoma | ||
| Machine cost | Moderate | High | Moderate |
GA, general anesthesia; LA, local anesthesia.