Inducing intravesical hyperthermia of the ex-vivo porcine bladder wall: radiofrequency-induction versus recirculation using a custom-made device

<p><b>Introduction:</b> Several techniques can be used to treat intravesical chemohyperthermia (ChHT). We compared radiofrequency-induced hyperthermia (RF-HT) with conductive hyperthermia (C-HT) for their ability to induce bladder wall temperatures of >40.5 °C, the target temperature for ChHT.</p> <p><b>Materials and Methods:</b> Fresh porcine bladders (<i>n</i> = 12) were placed in a temperature-controlled saline bath to simulate body temperature and circulation. HT was induced with RF-HT (43 °C) or C-HT (inflow temperature 44 and 46 °C) using a custom-made device. In two additional bladders, we varied intravesical solution and volume. Temperatures were recorded with a three-way catheter containing three mucosal and two urethral thermocouples (TCs) and a 915 MHz RF antenna, and with external TCs in the bladder wall at three different levels and three different locations.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> Target temperature (40.5 °C) was reached in the submucosa at all locations by both techniques. In the detrusor, target temperature was reached by RF-HT at the bladder neck and side wall. C-HT<sub>46</sub> reached significantly higher submucosal temperatures at the side wall. The bladder dome seemed best heated by C-HT, although a high inflow temperature (46 vs. 44 °C) was required (<i>ns</i>). Intravesical saline resulted in higher temperatures than sterile water for RF-HT. A volume of 100 mL resulted in higher bladder dome temperatures for RF-HT, and higher bladder neck with lower dome temperatures for C-HT.</p> <p><b>Conclusion:</b> Our results indicate a slightly superior heating capacity for RF-HT compared to C-HT, whereas for the bladder dome, the reverse seems true. Comparative studies are warranted to evaluate whether HT efficacy differs between both techniques, with emphasis on tumor location.</p>