Cryoablation (CA) versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in kidney nodules: which one is the best technique?
Type:Scientific Electronic Presentation
Authors: Ricardo Natel, Beatriz Ahmad, Bruno Pasquini, Carolina Zaghini, Antonio Rahal, Luis Socolowski, Juliano De Andrade, Rodrigo Gobbo
Keywords:Kidney Neoplasms; Nephrectomy; Cryoablation; Radiofrequency Ablation.

The aim of this project is to compare Cryoablation (CA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) procedures as treatment for small kidney tumors (SKTs).

Material and methods

The comparison between these procedures was performed through a review of cases carried out at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein institution and through a search in the PubMed electronic database. For electronic research, the words “cryoablation” and “radiofrequency ablation” were used as descriptors.



Partial nephrectomy (PN) remains considered the gold standard treatment of small kidney tumors (SKTs), which are between 2 and 4 cm. However, minimally invasive techniques, such as CA and RFA, have been considered alternatives to PN for patients who are not clinically eligible for this treatment.

It is seen that some patients are not ideal candidates for PN due to a variety of factors such as advanced age, comorbidity, solitary kidney, obesity, among others. Both treatments, CA and RFA, consist of thermal ablative techniques that aim to preserve renal function and, in addition, offer less hospitalization, lower cost, treatment of more than one nodule or repeated sessions in the same nodule. There are criteria that define kidney tumors as candidates for CA or RFA treatments, such as small size and non-central location.

The main complications arising from RFA of renal... more


Despite some differences seen during the study, both therapies are known to have similar efficacy and complication rates. Nevertheless, there is an urgent need for clinical studies to establish long-term results on which intervention is most appropriate for treating SKTs.