The greater safety inherent in Nanoknife should cause it's rapid deployment BUT WE HAVE THIS PREJUDICE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT ALL NEW THINGS ARE LESS SAFE .,,,,, WHILE OLD METHODS ARE SAFE.

When something that is inherently safer like IRE comes along it should NOT be delayed over the safety issue.

Dr. Kee in his recent lecture showed the liver case that
Dr. Ken Thomson did down in Australia.

The lady had a liver metastasis right beside a big hole in her liver that had been left by the previous radiofrequency ablation.

She refused another RF ablation because she said the first one was painful and made her very ill.

So they Nanoknifed the one right beside it.

Long-story-short,... she went home the day of the procedure with only a bandaid and said she never knew she had the procedure.

2 weeks later it was barely visible on CT scan.
4 weeks late they couldn't find it on CT scan.

BUT THE BIG HONKING HOLE FROM THE RF ABLATION WAS STILL THERE STARING AT THEM.

Now can anyone say patients are safer having RF ablation?
But you can bet your ass the Nanoknife will be held up while the safety issues are investigated,..WHILE PEOPLE KEEP GETTING RF ABLATIONS.

IT AIN'T RIGHT!