| | Circularity | Sphericity |
|---|
| | Technique A1
| Technique B2
| Technique A1
| Technique B2
|
Protocol 13
| 0.4 ± 0.1#,*
| 0.6 ± 0.3#,**
| 1.7 ± 0.3+,***
| 1.0 ± 0.2+,****
|
(0.3 - 0.5) | (0.3 - 0.8) | (1.3 - 2.0) | (0.7 - 1.2) |
Protocol 24
| 0.7 ± 0.1##,*
| 0.7 ± 0.2##,**
| 1.4 ± 0.2++,***
| 0.9 ± 0.1++,****
|
(0.5 - 0.9) | (0.4 - 0.9) | (1.2 - 1.7) | (0.7 - 1.0) |
Protocol 35
| 0.5 ± 0.2###,*
| 0.8 ± 0.1###,**
| 1.6 ± 0.2+++,***
| 0.9 ± 0.1+++,****
|
| | (0.3 - 0.7) | (0.7 - 0.8) | (1.4 - 1.9) | (0.8 - 0.9) |
-
1semi-automated software prototype for CT 3d rendering with the “Chebyshev Center Concept” implemented;
-
2standard CT 3d analysis;
-
3Protocol 1 with n = 5 IREs (three applicators, tip exposure of 20 mm, distance between pairs of applicators of 15 mm, pulse number of 90, pulse length of 90 μs, and electric field of 1500 V/cm);
-
4Protocol 2 with n = 5 IREs (three applicators, tip exposure of 25 mm, distance between pairs of applicators of 20 mm, pulse number of 90, pulse length of 90 μs, and electric field of 1500 V/cm);
-
5Protocol 3 with n = 5 IREs (six applicators, tip exposure of 30 mm, distance between pairs of applicators of 15 mm, pulse number of 70, pulse length of 90 μs, and electric field of 1400 V/cm);
- statistical differences between Technique A and Technique B were analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test: #p > 0.05; ##p > 0.05; ###p < 0.01; +p < 0.01; ++p < 0.01; +++p < 0.01;
- statistical differences between Protocol 1, Protocol 2 and Protocol 3 were analyzed with non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test: *p > 0.05; **p > 0.05; ***p > 0.05; ****p > 0.05.
