Next Article in Journal
Trust-Based Intelligent Routing Protocol with Q-Learning for Mission-Critical Wireless Sensor Networks
Next Article in Special Issue
Wearable Sensor Based on Flexible Sinusoidal Antenna for Strain Sensing Applications
Previous Article in Journal
A Chip Antenna for Bluetooth Earphones with Cross-Head Interference Tested from Received-Signal Sensing
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Microwave Ablation of Liver, Kidney and Lung Lesions: One-Month Response and Manufacturer’s Charts’ Reliability in Clinical Practice

Sensors 2022, 22(11), 3973; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22113973
by Julien Frandon *, Philippe Akessoul, Tarek Kammoun, Djamel Dabli, Hélène de Forges, Jean-Paul Beregi and Joël Greffier
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Sensors 2022, 22(11), 3973; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22113973
Submission received: 21 April 2022 / Revised: 16 May 2022 / Accepted: 19 May 2022 / Published: 24 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Microwave and Antenna System in Medical Applications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with retrospective study evaluating differences between manufacturer predictions of ablation size and actually measured ablation zone dimensions from 1 month follow-up images. I find this study and its findings important to be published. Please refer to following minor points on how to update paper.

Abstract: typo: Please change term to "Microwave ablation systems".

Introduction, 2nd paragraph: The statement that "Microwave ablation does not depend on electrical conductivity [5]" is suspicious. As frequency increases, the name of term may change to effective conductivity, but still represent EM losses within tissue. Furthermore, Effective conductivity plays major role in shaping and extent of direct heating zone with electromagnetic heating losses. Therefore, I recommend deleting this statement.

Lines 70-72: Please check grammar of the sentence.

Figure 2, bottom right subplot in lungs:  Can authors comment on dark tubular structure in the middle of ablated region? It almost seems like insertion track, although it could be airway as well. If it is indeed insertion track, then labels for L, and l need to be changed.

Thank you

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop