{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02182952182952183, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.595890410958904, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of cryoablation, radiofrequency ablation and high‐intensity focused ultrasound for treating small renal tumours

For an ablative technology to be considered as a clinically viable alternative for oncological applications, two simple criteria must be met. First, an ablative technology must be able to completely destroy all viable tissue, with no areas of viable tissue left. Second, the surgeon must be able to monitor and precisely target the area to be ablated to assure complete tumour destruction and preservation of surrounding vital structures. Ablative methods that can achieve these two basic requirements while allowing a minimally invasive approach may become the future of surgical management of small renal masses. Herein, we discuss the currently available data on the efficacy and morbidity rates of the most promising ablative technologies, i.e. cryoablation, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU).