Home Medicine Laparoscopic versus open major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A case-matched analysis of short- and long-term outcomes
Article Open Access

Laparoscopic versus open major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A case-matched analysis of short- and long-term outcomes

  • Aoxiao He , Zhihao Huang , Jiakun Wang , Qian Feng , Rongguiyi Zhang , Hongcheng Lu , Long Peng EMAIL logo and Linquan Wu EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: June 30, 2021

Abstract

Background

The feasibility and safety of laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) are still uncertain. The purpose of the present study is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LMH with those of open major hepatectomy (OMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Method

Between January 2012 and December 2018, a total of 26 patients received laparoscopic major hepatectomy in our center. To minimize any confounding factors, a 1:3 case-matched analysis was conducted based on the demographics and extent of liver resection. Data of demographics, perioperative outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes were reviewed.

Results

Intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.007) was significantly lower in the LMH group. In addition, the LMH group exhibited a lower overall complication rate (P = 0.039) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.024). However, no statistically significant difference was found between LMH and OMH regarding operation time (P = 0.215) and operative cost (P = 0.860). Two laparoscopic cases were converted to open liver resection. In regard to long-term outcomes, there was no significant difference between LMH and OMH regarding disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.079) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.172).

Conclusion

LMH can be an effective and safe alternative to OMH for selected patients with liver cancer in short- and long-term outcomes.

1 Introduction

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly utilized by surgeons since the first introduction of LLR in 1992 [1]. With the continuous development in laparoscopic devices and approaches, laparoscopic minor resections have even become standard surgical procedures for treating solitary lesions located in liver segments 2–6 [2,3,4]. However, laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) has been relatively slow because LMH often correlated with a high risk of uncontrollable intraoperative bleeding, difficult procedures, and high rate of conversion. The second International Consensus Conference of Morioka recommended that LMH comprised innovative procedures in the exploration phase and could be performed only by those with experience of major open liver resections and advanced laparoscopic techniques [4]. With accumulating the development of new instruments, the introduction of novel techniques, the improvements in surgical skills, and experience of LLR, some recent studies reported that LMH and OMH had similar oncologic outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [5,6,7,8]. However, just a few studies described the long-term oncologic outcomes of LMH for HCC. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between LMH and OMH in patients with hepatic disease, especially those with HCC.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Patients

Between January 2012 and December 2018, we retrospectively collected data of 26 patients who underwent LMH for HCC at The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. In addition, a 1:3 case-matched analysis of patients (n = 78) who underwent open major hepatectomy (OMH) was also conducted based on the demographics and extent of liver resection. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, and the informed consents were obtained from all patients. Data of the medical records including patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and long-term oncologic follow-up were retrieved. The patients were divided into two groups according to the type of procedure: LMH group (n = 26) and OMH group (n = 78). The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and all subsequent amendments, and it was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University in China, and all patients provided written informed consent.

2.2 Definitions

According to The Brisbane 2000 terminology, major hepatectomy (MH) was defined as resection of more than three liver segments [9,10]. Because the right posterior sectionectomy and the right anterior sectionectomy were difficult to perform by open laparoscopic hepatectomy, these procedures were also considered as MH [11]. The overall complication was defined as those that occurred within 30 days after hepatectomy. The Claviene–Dindo classification was used to grade the severity of complications [12]. Postoperative mortality was defined as death within 90 days after surgery.

2.3 Surgical procedures

The preferred type of liver resection was anatomical resection, if indicated. The selection for the type of liver resection was based on the remaining liver function, the proximity of lesions to major vascular structure, the number of lesions, and the depth of the lesion. If the hepatic reserve was expected to be enough for the deep-seated lesion, major liver resection was performed. The hepatic reserve was evaluated in terms of the computed tomographic volumetry and indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min (ICG-R15). The indication of LMH was similar to that of OMH, including the terms of the hepatic reserve, type of hepatectomy, and postoperative care [13,14]. In patients with central lesions in the suprahepatic junction adjacent to the major hepatic vein and tumors adjacent or invading to the main portal pedicle or inferior vena cava, however, laparoscopic hepatectomy was not usually considered.

It has been described in more detail elsewhere for the techniques of LMH and OMH performed at our institution [13,14]. For both anatomical right or left hepatectomy, intraoperative ultrasonography was used routinely to decide the type of hepatectomy and get the free resection margin (Figure 1a and b). The Glissonean approach was used to control the liver inflow before mobilization of the hepatic lobe (Figure 1c and d). For right posterior sectionectomy or hemihepatectomy, multiple small hepatic veins were divided, and the liver was fully mobilized from the inferior vena cava as much as possible. For left hemihepatectomy, the round ligament was first divided. Then, the left triangular ligaments and left falciform were dissected until the left hepatic vein was exposed. The left portal vein and hepatic artery were isolated and divided by Hem-o-lock clips and or Endo-GIA device, after fully mobilizing the left liver (Figure 1e and f).

Figure 1 
                  Surgical techniques for LMH. (a and b) intraoperative ultrasonography is used routinely and the hepatic transection line was marked. (c and d) The Glissonean approach is used to control the liver inflow. (e and f) The left portal vein and hepatic artery are isolated and divided by Hem-o-lock clips and/or Endo-GIA device.
Figure 1

Surgical techniques for LMH. (a and b) intraoperative ultrasonography is used routinely and the hepatic transection line was marked. (c and d) The Glissonean approach is used to control the liver inflow. (e and f) The left portal vein and hepatic artery are isolated and divided by Hem-o-lock clips and/or Endo-GIA device.

2.4 Postoperative care and follow-up

The same postoperative monitoring and care were given to all patients, which included routine liver function tests and blood examinations. The abdominal drainage was removed in the absence of bile leakage or peritonitis. Assessment of serum AFP levels, ultrasonography, CT, and liver function tests was required bimonthly during the first postoperative year of follow-up. Then, the aforementioned tests should be required quarterly if no recurrence was detected. Recurrence was defined as HCC, characteristic findings on follow-up CT or MRI.

2.5 Statistical analysis

SPSS 17.0 software (IBM Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used to process all data. Categorical variables were compared using χ 2 test or Fisher’s exact test as appropriate, and continuous parameters using Student’s t test. Kaplan–Meier estimates for DFS and OS were compared between the LMH group and the OMH group using the log-rank test. P < 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

3 Results

During the study period, a total of 456 consecutive patients were treated by hepatectomy. Of these patients, 26 patients underwent LMH, and a 1:3 case-matched analysis of patients (n = 78) who underwent OMH was also conducted based on the demographics and extent of liver resection.

3.1 Patients’ characteristics

Patients’ characteristics of both groups are listed in Table 1. No significant differences were found between both groups in preoperative demographic characteristics, including gender, age, BMI, Child–Pugh classification, histologic cirrhosis, comorbidities, tumor size, and the number of tumors.

Table 1

Patients’ characteristics and perioperative outcomes

LMH (n = 26) OMH (n = 78) p value
Gender (M:F) 11:15 33:45 1.000
Age (years) 56.1 ± 10.6 52.0 ± 12.2 0.698
BMI (kg/m2) 23.8 ± 3.0 22.8 ± 2.7 0.110
Child–Pugh class, n (%)
A 23 (88.5) 70 (89.7) 1.000
B 3 (11.5) 8 (10.3)
Histologic cirrhosis 16 (61.5) 45 (57.7) 0.730
Comorbidities, n (%)
Diabetes 2 (7.6) 7 (9.0) 1.000
Hypertension 4 (15.4) 8 (10.26) 0.489
Underlying hepatic disease 11 (42.3) 29 (37.2) 0.642
Tumor size (mm) 75.0 ± 35.1 75.5 ± 38.8 0.378
Number of tumors 1.3 ± 0.6 1.4 ± 0.7 0.381

Continuous variables in the table are expressed as mean ± SD.

LMH, laparoscopic major hepatectomy; OMH, open major hepatectomy; M, male; F, female.

3.2 Surgical results

The surgical results of both groups are listed in Table 2, and no mortality during surgery was observed. Two patients (7.7%) in the laparoscopic group were converted to open procedure because of uncontrollable bleeding during parenchymal transection. A total of 55 patients (70.5%) in the OMH group and 15 patients (57.7%) in the LMH group (P = 0.227) were treated by portal triad clamping during hepatectomy. Significantly less intraoperative blood loss was found in the LMH group than in the OMH group (340.8 ± 225.2 mL vs 601.4 ± 509.4 mL, P = 0.007); however, no significant difference between the LMH group and the OMH group was found in intraoperative transfusion (26.9 vs 29.5%, P = 0.803). In addition, the operation time did not differ significantly between both groups (264.2 ± 14.1 min vs 255.4 ± 36.3 min, P = 0.215).

Table 2

Operative outcomes

LMH (n = 26) OMH (n = 78) P value
Operation time (min) 264.2 ± 14.1 255.4 ± 36.3 0.215
Intraoperative blood loss (mL) 340.8 ± 225.2 601.4 ± 509.4 0.007
Intraoperative transfusion, n (%) 7 (26.9) 23 (29.5) 0.803
Total complication, n (%) 4 (15.4) 29 (37.2) 0.039
Wound infection 2 (7.7) 6 (7.7) 1.000
Bile leakage 1 (3.8) 5 (6.4) 1.000
Intraabdominal fluid collection 1 (3.8) 10 (12.8) 0.357
Bleeding, n (%) 0 1 (1.3) 1.000
Pulmonary infection, n (%) 0 5 (6.4) 0.427
Abdominal incisional hernia 0 2 (2.6) 1.000
Recovery of bowel movement, days 1.5 ± 0.5 3.1 ± 0.6 0.083
Time of off-bed activities, days 2.8 ± 0.6 4.9 ± 1.1 0.003
Postoperative hospital stay, days 11.0 ± 2.9 15.5 ± 5.2 0.024
pR1, n (%) 1 (3.8) 7 (9.0) 0.671
pRM (mm) 7.5 ± 35.1 7.1 ± 36.4 0.895
Operative cost (RMB) 4850.0 ± 1041.8 4790.3 ± 904.3 0.860
Overall cost (RMB) 56306.4 ± 9477.5 59251.9 ± 16075.6 0.024

Continuous variables in the table are expressed as mean ± SD.

LMH laparoscopic major hepatectomy, OMH open major hepatectomy, pR1 positive surgical resection margin, pRM pathological resection margin.

P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and was shown in bold.

A total 18 patients (69.2%) in the LMH group and 54 patients (69.2%) in the OMH underwent right hepatectomy. Pathologic examination of free resection margin was similar between both groups (96.2 vs 91.0%, P = 0.671).

3.3 Postoperative outcomes and cost

Postoperative results of both groups are listed in Table 2. There were one laparoscopy patient (3.8%) and five (6.4%) patients undergoing open surgery with hepatectomy-related complications after surgery (P = 1.000). Overall complications were significantly lower in the LMH group compared to the OMH group (15.4 vs 37.2%, P = 0.039). There was no perioperative mortality between both groups. Although no significant difference was found in the recovery of the bowel movement (1.5 ± 0.5 days vs 3.1 ± 0.6 days, P = 0.083) between both groups, duration of off-bed activities (2.8 ± 0.6 days vs 4.9 ± 1.1 days, P = 0.003) and postoperative hospital stay (11.0 ± 2.9 days vs 15.5 ± 5.2 days, P = 0.024) was significantly shorter in the LMH group compared to the OMH group. Both the surgical and overall costs were collected. Interesting, we found that although no significant difference was found in surgical cost between both groups (4850.0 ± 1041.8 RMB vs 4790.3 ± 904.3 RMB, P = 0.860), the overall cost of the LMH group was significantly lower than the OMH group (56306.4 ± 9477.5 RMB vs 59251.9 ± 16075.6 RMB, P = 0.024).

3.4 Long-term survival outcomes

The follow-up was 33.3 ± 15.6 months in the LMH group and 31.4 ± 15.7 months in the OLH group, and no significant difference was found between both groups (P = 0.752). The median OS of LMH and OMH groups was 60.0 months (95% CI, 50.3–69.7 months) and 60.0 months, respectively (95% CI, 47.6–72.4 months; Figure 2a). The median DFS of LMH and OMH groups was 63.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 31.8–94.1 months) and 36.0 months (95% CI, 29.7–42.3 months), respectively (Figure 2b). No significant difference in OS (P = 0.172) and DFS (P = 0.079) was found between both groups.

Figure 2 
                  Weighted Kaplan–Meier plot for DFS and OS for LMH versus OMH. (a) Median DFS of LMH and OMH groups was 63.0 and 36.0 months (P = 0.079), respectively. (b) Median OS of LMH and OMH groups was 60.0 and 60.0 months (P = 0.172), respectively.
Figure 2

Weighted Kaplan–Meier plot for DFS and OS for LMH versus OMH. (a) Median DFS of LMH and OMH groups was 63.0 and 36.0 months (P = 0.079), respectively. (b) Median OS of LMH and OMH groups was 60.0 and 60.0 months (P = 0.172), respectively.

4 Discussion

With the continuous development in laparoscopic devices and approaches, laparoscopic minor liver resections have even become standard surgical procedures for treating solitary lesions located in liver segments 2–6 [2,3,4]. Due to the long learning curve for LLR, it is necessary to consider the expertise of the surgeon for safe laparoscopic minor resection [15,16]. Recently, in some highly specialized centers, LMH can be performed as effectively and safely as OMH [3]. LMH even was not inferior to OMH in terms of resection margin, postoperative complications, operative mortality, and long-term outcomes stated by the Second International Consensus Conference held in Morioka; in addition, LLR was superior in terms of shorter hospital stay [4].

As presented in Table 3, we have summarized all comparative studies of major LLR vs major OLR [4,5,6,7,8,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. The negative margins and oncologic integrity of the procedure should be obtained, when major LLR is performed for cancer. No difference in the resection margin was found in the comparative studies of major LLR vs major OLR, although the tumor size of major LLR was large than that of major OLR in the studies by Guro et al. [8], Goumard et al. [17], Komatsu et al. [18], and Tarantino et al. [20]. In the present case-matched study, the negative margin of major LLR was similar to major OLR. In addition, the R0 resection rate of the LMH group was 96.2%. Recently, some meta-analyses of retrospective studies also observed that no significant difference was found between major LLR and major OLR in the resection margin for HCC patients [24,25]. To better learn major LLR for HCC patients, long-term survival rate should also be obtained. As shown in Table 3, data of 5-year over survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were obtained from three studies including the data of our study. Although the laparoscopic group has a longer OS compared to open group, no significant difference was found between both groups with regard to OS and DFS. In addition, Wang et al. [26] conducted a meta-analysis, which compared short- and long-term outcomes of major LLR with those of major OLR. The results of this meta-analysis showed that major LLR had advantages in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative morbidity. Therefore, we can conclude that major LLR may be as oncological safety as major OLR. Because the aforementioned data come from observational clinical studies, however, additional randomized controlled trials are required to provide convincing evidence in the future.

Table 3

Main characteristics of the comparative studies of major LLR vs major OLR

Authors Type of surgery No. of patients Tumor size (mm) Number of tumors Resection margins (mm) Operation time (min) Intraoperative blood loss (mL) No. transfusions Total complications Postoperative hospital stay (days) Hospital death OS DFS
Chen et al. [5] LMH 126 64 (14–130) 112/14 NA 240 (75–590) 200 (20–2500) 6 (4.8%) 28 (22.2%) 6 (3–21) 0 (0%) NA NA
OMH 133 67 (16–240) 110/23 NA 230 (100–495) 400 (50–2,000) 22 (16.5%) 36 (27.1%) 8 (4–46) 1 (0.9%) NA NA
Cho et al. [6] LRPS 24 37 ± 18 NA 3.0 ± 5.8 567.4 ± 212.4 NA NA 2 (8.3%) 10.6 ± 4.8 NA 79.1% (5 years) 42.2% (5 years)
ORPS 19 48 ± 25 NA 7.0 ± 5.0 316.1 ± 63.0 NA NA 4 (21.1%) 11.1 ± 3.2 NA 77.7% 51.5%
Cho et al. [7] LCH 20 26 (6–140) NA 7 (0.1–40) 388 (246–661) 350 (100–1,300) 2 (10%) 6 (30%) 8 (5–24) 6 (30%) NA NA
OCH 20 27 (10–82) NA 6.5 (0.1–23) 268 (98–412) 400 (50–3,300) 1 (5%) 4 (20%) 10 (5–24) 4 (20%) NA NA
Goumard et al. [8] LRH 16 39 (2–85) 1.5 (1–3) 13.5 (0–50) 360 (240–450) 150 (100–700) 1 (6.3%) 4 (25%) 7 (5–11) 0 (0%) 67.1 % (3-year) NA
ORH 16 62 (0–250) 1.5 (1–3) 6.5 (0–60) 300 (240–390) 100 (100–800) 0 (0%) 8 (50%) 12 (7–25) 1 (6.3%) NA NA
Guro et al. [17] LMH 67 41 ± 24 NA 2 (2.4%) 416.6 ± 166.9 1543.3 ± 2641.8 29 (34.9%) 17 (20.5%) 11.3 ± 8.3 1 (1.5%) 77.3% (5 years) 50.8% (5 years)
OMH 110 63 ± 38 NA 6 (5.4%) 332.5 ± 105.4 1248.1 ± 1402.8 45 (40.5%) 43 (38.7%) 18 ± 21.4 3 (2.7%) 60.2% 40.1%
Komatsu et al. [18] LMH 38 47.5 (23–180) 19/19 6 (15.8%) 365 (180–600) 100 (20–900) 2 (5.2%) 12 (31.6%) 7.5 (3–51) NA 73.4 % (3 years) 50.3 % (3 years)
OMH 38 85.0 (20–180) 16/22 6 (15.8%) 300 (210–425) 80 (20–800) 1 (2.6%) 23 (60.5%) 10.0 (5–53) NA 69.2% 29.7%
Rhu et al. [19] LRPS 53 31 ± 18 47/6 13 ± 10 381 ± 149 NA 7 (13.2) 5 (9.4%) 8.9 ± 3.6 0 NA NA
ORPS 97 31 ± 17 89/8 12 ± 9 220 ± 91 NA 2 (2.1) 8 (8.3%) 10.2 ± 3.6 1 (1%) NA NA
Tarantino et al. [20] LRPS 13 27 ± 9 1.0 ± 0.2 10 ± 3 234 ± 57 125 ± 80 NA 2 (15.3%) 5.7 ± 3 NA NA NA
ORPS 51 37 ± 23 1.0 ± 0.2 10 ± 2 216 ± 73 208 ± 263 NA 27 (52.9%) 10.7 ± 5 NA NA NA
Yoon et al. [21] LRH 33 33.1 ± 16.5 1.1 ± 0.2 26 ± 21 297 ± 113 125.5 ± 229 0 (0) 1 (3.03%) 9.97 ± 3.02 NA 85.1% (2 years) 100% (2 years)
ORH 33 29.6 ± 15 1.1 ± 0.2 20 ± 15 176 ± 60 132 ± 178 0 (0) 7 (21.21%) 13.94 ± 3.37 NA 83.9% 88.8%
Zhang et al. [22] LRH 35 67 ± 42 NA 35/0 309 ± 108 293 ± 82.5 NA 0 9 ± 2 NA NA NA
ORH 42 59 ± 30 NA 42/0 223 ± 110 433 ± 105.5 NA 21 (50%) 15 ± 3 NA NA NA
Zhang et al. [23] LLH 20 67 ± 42 NA 20/0 143 ± 35.6 180 ± 20.5 NA 0 7 ± 1 NA NA NA
OLH 25 59 ± 30 NA 25/0 137 ± 29.8 350 ± 45.3 NA 10 (40%) 12 ± 2 NA NA NA
Our results LMH 26 75 ± 35 1.3 ± 0.6 7.5 ± 35.1 264.2 ± 14.1 340.8 ± 225.2 7 (26.9%) 4 (15.4%) 11.0 ± 2.9 0 (0%) 53.7% (5 years) 52.4% (5 years)
OMH 78 76 ± 39 1.4 ± 0.7 7.1 ± 36.4 255.4 ± 36.3 601.4 ± 509.4 23 (29.5%) 29 (37.2%) 15.5 ± 5.2 0 (0%) 47.6% 21.4%

Continuous variables in the table are expressed as mean ± SD or median(range) unless otherwise specified.

LCH, laparoscopic central hepatectomy; LRPS, laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy; LRH, laparoscopic right hepatectomy; LLH, laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy.

Statistically significant results are shown in bold.

P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and was shown in bold.

With regard to the data on perioperative outcomes, major LLR was associated with favorable intraoperative blood loss, total postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay in the summarized comparative studies. However, the operation time of major LLR was significantly longer than major OLR in most of the retrospective studies [4,5,6,7,8,17,18,19,21,22]. Recently, the Japanese National Clinical Database showed that major LLR was associated with less blood loss, a lower complication rate, and shorter hospital stay compared with major OLR [27]. Regarding short-term outcomes in the present study, the average operation time of major LLR group was longer than OLR group. However, major LLR group has a significantly lower intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complication rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay. This indicates that although major LLR is technically more difficult than OLR, major LLR is similar to major OLR in short-term outcomes. Furthermore, owing to its minimal invasiveness, major LLR facilitates earlier patient recovery. Interestingly, our results showed that although no significant difference was found in surgical cost between both groups, the overall cost of the LMH group was significantly lower than the OMH group, which might be related to fast recovery.

To the best of our knowledge, the present report was the first study that summarized the long-term survival rate of major LLR in patients with HCC. However, there were many limitations in this study. First, this was a retrospective study, which may introduce bias. Second, although there was no difference in the resection margin between the two groups, we preferred major OLR in patients with HCC close to the major Glisson pedicle or the inferior vena cava.

5 Conclusion

In conclusion, major LLR of HCC is feasible and safe with favorable short- and long-term outcomes, when performed in experienced centers.


Aoxiao He and Zhihao Huang have contributed equally to this article.


  1. Funding information: The present study was supported by grants from the Department of Education Project of Jiangxi Province, China (Grant No. GJJ180083), the Science and Technology Project of Health Commission of Jiangxi Province, China (Grant No. 20204266), and the Traditional Chinese Medicine Science and Technology Project of Jiangxi Province, China (Grant No. 2019A015).

  2. Author contributions: Aoxiao He, Zhihao Huang, Long Peng and Linquan Wu: conceived and designed the study; collected, assembled, analyzed, and interpreted the data; and wrote the manuscript. Qian Feng and Hongcheng Lu: conceived and designed the study and performed the analysis with constructive discussions. Rongguiyi Zhang and Jiakun Wang: statistical analysis and reviewed the manuscript.

  3. Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

  4. Data availability statement: The datasets used or analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

[1] Gagner M, Rheault M, Dubuc J. Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy for liver tumor. Surg Endosc. 1992;6:97–8.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Lee GC, Kwon CHD, Joh JW, Jin SH, Jung GO, Ju IM, et al. Preliminary experience of laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Korean J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2011;15:7–12.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Buell JF, Cherqui D, Geller DA, O’Rourke N, Iannitti D, Dagher I, et al. The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: the Louisville statement, 2008. Ann Surg. 2009;250:825–30.10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b3b2d8Search in Google Scholar

[4] Wakabayashi G, Cherqui D, Geller DA, Buell JF, Kaneko H, Han HS, et al. Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: a report from the second international consensus conference held in Morioka. Ann Surg. 2015;261:619–29.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Chen J, Li H, Liu F, Li B, Wei Y. Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma for various resection extent. Medicine. 2017;96:e6460.10.1097/MD.0000000000006460Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[6] Cho CW, Rhu J, Kwon CHD, Choi GS, Kim JM, Joh JW, et al. Short-term outcomes of totally laparoscopic central hepatectomy and right anterior sectionectomy for centrally located tumors: a case-matched study with propensity score matching. World J Surg. 2017;41:2838–46.10.1007/s00268-017-4105-5Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Cho JY, Han HS, Yoon YS, Choi Y, Lee W. Outcomes of laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the era of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery. 2015;158:135–41.10.1016/j.surg.2015.02.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Guro H, Cho JY, Han HS, Yoon YS, Choi Y, Kim S, et al. Outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Surgical Oncol. 2018;27:31–5.10.1016/j.suronc.2017.11.006Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] Reddy SK, Barbas AS, Turley RS, Steel JL, Tsung A, Marsh JW, et al. A standard definition of major hepatectomy: resection of four or more liver segments. HPB. 2011;13:494–502.10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00330.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] Strasberg SM. Nomenclature of hepatic anatomy and resections: a review of the Brisbane 2000 system. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2005;12:351–5.10.1007/s00534-005-0999-7Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Lee MK, Gao F, Strasberg SM. Completion of a liver surgery complexity score and classification based on an international survey of experts. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223:332–42.10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.03.039Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[12] Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6,336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.aeSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[13] Zhou F, Shao JH, Zou SB, Huang MW, Yin XB, Yu X. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a higher incident frequency in hepatolithiasis patients. Surg Today. 2013;43:1371–81.10.1007/s00595-012-0425-0Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[14] Peng L, Xiao J, Liu Z, Zhu J, Wan R, Xiao W, et al. Laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy for the treatment of hepatolithiasis: a comparative study with open approach. Int J Surg. 2017;40:117–23.10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.068Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[15] Dagher I, Belli G, Fantini C, Laurent A, Tayar C, Lainas P, et al. Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a European experience. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:16–23.10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.03.012Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[16] Martin RC, Scoggins CR, McMasters KM. Laparoscopic hepatic lobectomy: advantages of a minimally invasive approach. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:634–26.10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.12.022Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] Goumard C, Komatsu S, Brustia R, Fartoux L, Soubrane O, Scatton O. Technical feasibility and safety of laparoscopic right hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma following sequential TACE–PVE: a comparative study. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:2340–9.10.1007/s00464-016-5225-ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Komatsu S, Brustia R, Goumard C, Perdigao F, Soubrane O, Scatton O. Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a matched pair analysis. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:1965–74.10.1007/s00464-015-4422-4Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Rhu J, Kim SJ, Choi GS, Kim JM, Joh JW, Kwon CHD. Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in a highvolume center: a propensity score matched analysis. World J Surg. 2018;42:2930–7.10.1007/s00268-018-4531-zSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] Tarantino G, Magistri P, Serra V, Berardi G, Assirati G, Ballarin R, et al. Laparoscopic liver resection of right posterior segments for hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27:559–63.10.1089/lap.2016.0506Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Yoon YI, Kim KH, Kang SH, Kim WJ, Shin MH, Lee SK, et al. Pure laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score matched analysis. Ann Surg. 2017;265:856–63.10.1097/SLA.0000000000002072Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] Zhang Y, Chen XM, Sun DL. Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open right hemihepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26:e157–60.10.1097/SLE.0000000000000355Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Zhang Y, Huang J, Chen XM, Sun DL. A comparison of laparoscopic versus open left hemihepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26:146–9.10.1097/SLE.0000000000000247Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] Kasai M, Cipriani F, Gayet B, Aldrighetti L, Ratti F, Sarmiento JM, et al. Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Surgery. 2018;163:985–95.10.1016/j.surg.2018.01.020Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] Xu H, Liu F, Li H, Wei Y, Li B. Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017;52:1307–14.10.1080/00365521.2017.1373846Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[26] Wang ZY, Chen QL, Sun LL, He SP, Luo XF, Huang LS, et al. Laparoscopic versus open major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative cohort studies. BMC Cancer. 2019;19:1047.10.1186/s12885-019-6240-xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[27] Takahara T, Wakabayashi G, Konno H, Gotoh M, Yamaue H, Yanaga K, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic major hepatectomy with propensity score matched open cases from the National Clinical Database in Japan. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2016;23:721–34.10.1002/jhbp.405Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2020-08-18
Revised: 2021-05-05
Accepted: 2021-05-12
Published Online: 2021-06-30

© 2021 Aoxiao He et al., published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Research Articles
  2. Identification of ZG16B as a prognostic biomarker in breast cancer
  3. Behçet’s disease with latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection
  4. Erratum
  5. Erratum to “Suffering from Cerebral Small Vessel Disease with and without Metabolic Syndrome”
  6. Research Articles
  7. GPR37 promotes the malignancy of lung adenocarcinoma via TGF-β/Smad pathway
  8. Expression and role of ABIN1 in sepsis: In vitro and in vivo studies
  9. Additional baricitinib loading dose improves clinical outcome in COVID-19
  10. The co-treatment of rosuvastatin with dapagliflozin synergistically inhibited apoptosis via activating the PI3K/AKt/mTOR signaling pathway in myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury rats
  11. SLC12A8 plays a key role in bladder cancer progression and EMT
  12. LncRNA ATXN8OS enhances tamoxifen resistance in breast cancer
  13. Case Report
  14. Serratia marcescens as a cause of unfavorable outcome in the twin pregnancy
  15. Spleno-adrenal fusion mimicking an adrenal metastasis of a renal cell carcinoma: A case report and embryological background
  16. Research Articles
  17. TRIM25 contributes to the malignancy of acute myeloid leukemia and is negatively regulated by microRNA-137
  18. CircRNA circ_0004370 promotes cell proliferation, migration, and invasion and inhibits cell apoptosis of esophageal cancer via miR-1301-3p/COL1A1 axis
  19. LncRNA XIST regulates atherosclerosis progression in ox-LDL-induced HUVECs
  20. Potential role of IFN-γ and IL-5 in sepsis prediction of preterm neonates
  21. Rapid Communication
  22. COVID-19 vaccine: Call for employees in international transportation industries and international travelers as the first priority in global distribution
  23. Case Report
  24. Rare squamous cell carcinoma of the kidney with concurrent xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis: A case report and review of the literature
  25. An infertile female delivered a baby after removal of primary renal carcinoid tumor
  26. Research Articles
  27. Hypertension, BMI, and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases
  28. Case Report
  29. Coexistence of bilateral macular edema and pale optic disc in the patient with Cohen syndrome
  30. Research Articles
  31. Correlation between kinematic sagittal parameters of the cervical lordosis or head posture and disc degeneration in patients with posterior neck pain
  32. Review Articles
  33. Hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the lung: An analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database
  34. Research Articles
  35. Thermography in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome
  36. Pemetrexed-based first-line chemotherapy had particularly prominent objective response rate for advanced NSCLC: A network meta-analysis
  37. Comparison of single and double autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma patients
  38. The influence of smoking in minimally invasive spinal fusion surgery
  39. Impact of body mass index on left atrial dimension in HOCM patients
  40. Expression and clinical significance of CMTM1 in hepatocellular carcinoma
  41. miR-142-5p promotes cervical cancer progression by targeting LMX1A through Wnt/β-catenin pathway
  42. Comparison of multiple flatfoot indicators in 5–8-year-old children
  43. Early MRI imaging and follow-up study in cerebral amyloid angiopathy
  44. Intestinal fatty acid-binding protein as a biomarker for the diagnosis of strangulated intestinal obstruction: A meta-analysis
  45. miR-128-3p inhibits apoptosis and inflammation in LPS-induced sepsis by targeting TGFBR2
  46. Dynamic perfusion CT – A promising tool to diagnose pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
  47. Biomechanical evaluation of self-cinching stitch techniques in rotator cuff repair: The single-loop and double-loop knot stitches
  48. Review Articles
  49. The ambiguous role of mannose-binding lectin (MBL) in human immunity
  50. Case Report
  51. Membranous nephropathy with pulmonary cryptococcosis with improved 1-year follow-up results: A case report
  52. Fertility problems in males carrying an inversion of chromosome 10
  53. Acute myeloid leukemia with leukemic pleural effusion and high levels of pleural adenosine deaminase: A case report and review of literature
  54. Metastatic renal Ewing’s sarcoma in adult woman: Case report and review of the literature
  55. Burkitt-like lymphoma with 11q aberration in a patient with AIDS and a patient without AIDS: Two cases reports and literature review
  56. Skull hemophilia pseudotumor: A case report
  57. Judicious use of low-dosage corticosteroids for non-severe COVID-19: A case report
  58. Adult-onset citrullinaemia type II with liver cirrhosis: A rare cause of hyperammonaemia
  59. Clinicopathologic features of Good’s syndrome: Two cases and literature review
  60. Fatal immune-related hepatitis with intrahepatic cholestasis and pneumonia associated with camrelizumab: A case report and literature review
  61. Research Articles
  62. Effects of hydroxyethyl starch and gelatin on the risk of acute kidney injury following orthotopic liver transplantation: A multicenter retrospective comparative clinical study
  63. Significance of nucleic acid positive anal swab in COVID-19 patients
  64. circAPLP2 promotes colorectal cancer progression by upregulating HELLS by targeting miR-335-5p
  65. Ratios between circulating myeloid cells and lymphocytes are associated with mortality in severe COVID-19 patients
  66. Risk factors of left atrial appendage thrombus in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation
  67. Clinical features of hypertensive patients with COVID-19 compared with a normotensive group: Single-center experience in China
  68. Surgical myocardial revascularization outcomes in Kawasaki disease: systematic review and meta-analysis
  69. Decreased chromobox homologue 7 expression is associated with epithelial–mesenchymal transition and poor prognosis in cervical cancer
  70. FGF16 regulated by miR-520b enhances the cell proliferation of lung cancer
  71. Platelet-rich fibrin: Basics of biological actions and protocol modifications
  72. Accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer using logistic regression
  73. miR-377 inhibition enhances the survival of trophoblast cells via upregulation of FNDC5 in gestational diabetes mellitus
  74. Prognostic significance of TRIM28 expression in patients with breast carcinoma
  75. Integrative bioinformatics analysis of KPNA2 in six major human cancers
  76. Exosomal-mediated transfer of OIP5-AS1 enhanced cell chemoresistance to trastuzumab in breast cancer via up-regulating HMGB3 by sponging miR-381-3p
  77. A four-lncRNA signature for predicting prognosis of recurrence patients with gastric cancer
  78. Knockdown of circ_0003204 alleviates oxidative low-density lipoprotein-induced human umbilical vein endothelial cells injury: Circulating RNAs could explain atherosclerosis disease progression
  79. Propofol postpones colorectal cancer development through circ_0026344/miR-645/Akt/mTOR signal pathway
  80. Knockdown of lncRNA TapSAKI alleviates LPS-induced injury in HK-2 cells through the miR-205/IRF3 pathway
  81. COVID-19 severity in relation to sociodemographics and vitamin D use
  82. Clinical analysis of 11 cases of nocardiosis
  83. Cis-regulatory elements in conserved non-coding sequences of nuclear receptor genes indicate for crosstalk between endocrine systems
  84. Four long noncoding RNAs act as biomarkers in lung adenocarcinoma
  85. Real-world evidence of cytomegalovirus reactivation in non-Hodgkin lymphomas treated with bendamustine-containing regimens
  86. Relation between IL-8 level and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome
  87. circAGFG1 sponges miR-28-5p to promote non-small-cell lung cancer progression through modulating HIF-1α level
  88. Nomogram prediction model for renal anaemia in IgA nephropathy patients
  89. Effect of antibiotic use on the efficacy of nivolumab in the treatment of advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis
  90. NDRG2 inhibition facilitates angiogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma
  91. A nomogram for predicting metabolic steatohepatitis: The combination of NAMPT, RALGDS, GADD45B, FOSL2, RTP3, and RASD1
  92. Clinical and prognostic features of MMP-2 and VEGF in AEG patients
  93. The value of miR-510 in the prognosis and development of colon cancer
  94. Functional implications of PABPC1 in the development of ovarian cancer
  95. Prognostic value of preoperative inflammation-based predictors in patients with bladder carcinoma after radical cystectomy
  96. Sublingual immunotherapy increases Treg/Th17 ratio in allergic rhinitis
  97. Prediction of improvement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
  98. Effluent Osteopontin levels reflect the peritoneal solute transport rate
  99. circ_0038467 promotes PM2.5-induced bronchial epithelial cell dysfunction
  100. Significance of miR-141 and miR-340 in cervical squamous cell carcinoma
  101. Association between hair cortisol concentration and metabolic syndrome
  102. Microvessel density as a prognostic indicator of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
  103. Characteristics of BCR–ABL gene variants in patients of chronic myeloid leukemia
  104. Knee alterations in rheumatoid arthritis: Comparison of US and MRI
  105. Long non-coding RNA TUG1 aggravates cerebral ischemia and reperfusion injury by sponging miR-493-3p/miR-410-3p
  106. lncRNA MALAT1 regulated ATAD2 to facilitate retinoblastoma progression via miR-655-3p
  107. Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting severity in patients with hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome: A retrospective study
  108. Analysis of COVID-19 outbreak origin in China in 2019 using differentiation method for unusual epidemiological events
  109. Laparoscopic versus open major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A case-matched analysis of short- and long-term outcomes
  110. Travelers’ vaccines and their adverse events in Nara, Japan
  111. Association between Tfh and PGA in children with Henoch–Schönlein purpura
  112. Can exchange transfusion be replaced by double-LED phototherapy?
  113. circ_0005962 functions as an oncogene to aggravate NSCLC progression
  114. Circular RNA VANGL1 knockdown suppressed viability, promoted apoptosis, and increased doxorubicin sensitivity through targeting miR-145-5p to regulate SOX4 in bladder cancer cells
  115. Serum intact fibroblast growth factor 23 in healthy paediatric population
  116. Algorithm of rational approach to reconstruction in Fournier’s disease
  117. A meta-analysis of exosome in the treatment of spinal cord injury
  118. Src-1 and SP2 promote the proliferation and epithelial–mesenchymal transition of nasopharyngeal carcinoma
  119. Dexmedetomidine may decrease the bupivacaine toxicity to heart
  120. Hypoxia stimulates the migration and invasion of osteosarcoma via up-regulating the NUSAP1 expression
  121. Long noncoding RNA XIST knockdown relieves the injury of microglia cells after spinal cord injury by sponging miR-219-5p
  122. External fixation via the anterior inferior iliac spine for proximal femoral fractures in young patients
  123. miR-128-3p reduced acute lung injury induced by sepsis via targeting PEL12
  124. HAGLR promotes neuron differentiation through the miR-130a-3p-MeCP2 axis
  125. Phosphoglycerate mutase 2 is elevated in serum of patients with heart failure and correlates with the disease severity and patient’s prognosis
  126. Cell population data in identifying active tuberculosis and community-acquired pneumonia
  127. Prognostic value of microRNA-4521 in non-small cell lung cancer and its regulatory effect on tumor progression
  128. Mean platelet volume and red blood cell distribution width is associated with prognosis in premature neonates with sepsis
  129. 3D-printed porous scaffold promotes osteogenic differentiation of hADMSCs
  130. Association of gene polymorphisms with women urinary incontinence
  131. Influence of COVID-19 pandemic on stress levels of urologic patients
  132. miR-496 inhibits proliferation via LYN and AKT pathway in gastric cancer
  133. miR-519d downregulates LEP expression to inhibit preeclampsia development
  134. Comparison of single- and triple-port VATS for lung cancer: A meta-analysis
  135. Fluorescent light energy modulates healing in skin grafted mouse model
  136. Silencing CDK6-AS1 inhibits LPS-induced inflammatory damage in HK-2 cells
  137. Predictive effect of DCE-MRI and DWI in brain metastases from NSCLC
  138. Severe postoperative hyperbilirubinemia in congenital heart disease
  139. Baicalin improves podocyte injury in rats with diabetic nephropathy by inhibiting PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway
  140. Clinical factors predicting ureteral stent failure in patients with external ureteral compression
  141. Novel H2S donor proglumide-ADT-OH protects HUVECs from ox-LDL-induced injury through NF-κB and JAK/SATA pathway
  142. Triple-Endobutton and clavicular hook: A propensity score matching analysis
  143. Long noncoding RNA MIAT inhibits the progression of diabetic nephropathy and the activation of NF-κB pathway in high glucose-treated renal tubular epithelial cells by the miR-182-5p/GPRC5A axis
  144. Serum exosomal miR-122-5p, GAS, and PGR in the non-invasive diagnosis of CAG
  145. miR-513b-5p inhibits the proliferation and promotes apoptosis of retinoblastoma cells by targeting TRIB1
  146. Fer exacerbates renal fibrosis and can be targeted by miR-29c-3p
  147. The diagnostic and prognostic value of miR-92a in gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
  148. Prognostic value of α2δ1 in hypopharyngeal carcinoma: A retrospective study
  149. No significant benefit of moderate-dose vitamin C on severe COVID-19 cases
  150. circ_0000467 promotes the proliferation, metastasis, and angiogenesis in colorectal cancer cells through regulating KLF12 expression by sponging miR-4766-5p
  151. Downregulation of RAB7 and Caveolin-1 increases MMP-2 activity in renal tubular epithelial cells under hypoxic conditions
  152. Educational program for orthopedic surgeons’ influences for osteoporosis
  153. Expression and function analysis of CRABP2 and FABP5, and their ratio in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
  154. GJA1 promotes hepatocellular carcinoma progression by mediating TGF-β-induced activation and the epithelial–mesenchymal transition of hepatic stellate cells
  155. lncRNA-ZFAS1 promotes the progression of endometrial carcinoma by targeting miR-34b to regulate VEGFA expression
  156. Anticoagulation is the answer in treating noncritical COVID-19 patients
  157. Effect of late-onset hemorrhagic cystitis on PFS after haplo-PBSCT
  158. Comparison of Dako HercepTest and Ventana PATHWAY anti-HER2 (4B5) tests and their correlation with silver in situ hybridization in lung adenocarcinoma
  159. VSTM1 regulates monocyte/macrophage function via the NF-κB signaling pathway
  160. Comparison of vaginal birth outcomes in midwifery-led versus physician-led setting: A propensity score-matched analysis
  161. Treatment of osteoporosis with teriparatide: The Slovenian experience
  162. New targets of morphine postconditioning protection of the myocardium in ischemia/reperfusion injury: Involvement of HSP90/Akt and C5a/NF-κB
  163. Superenhancer–transcription factor regulatory network in malignant tumors
  164. β-Cell function is associated with osteosarcopenia in middle-aged and older nonobese patients with type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional study
  165. Clinical features of atypical tuberculosis mimicking bacterial pneumonia
  166. Proteoglycan-depleted regions of annular injury promote nerve ingrowth in a rabbit disc degeneration model
  167. Effect of electromagnetic field on abortion: A systematic review and meta-analysis
  168. miR-150-5p affects AS plaque with ASMC proliferation and migration by STAT1
  169. MALAT1 promotes malignant pleural mesothelioma by sponging miR-141-3p
  170. Effects of remifentanil and propofol on distant organ lung injury in an ischemia–reperfusion model
  171. miR-654-5p promotes gastric cancer progression via the GPRIN1/NF-κB pathway
  172. Identification of LIG1 and LIG3 as prognostic biomarkers in breast cancer
  173. MitoQ inhibits hepatic stellate cell activation and liver fibrosis by enhancing PINK1/parkin-mediated mitophagy
  174. Dissecting role of founder mutation p.V727M in GNE in Indian HIBM cohort
  175. circATP2A2 promotes osteosarcoma progression by upregulating MYH9
  176. Prognostic role of oxytocin receptor in colon adenocarcinoma
  177. Review Articles
  178. The function of non-coding RNAs in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
  179. Efficacy and safety of therapeutic plasma exchange in stiff person syndrome
  180. Role of cesarean section in the development of neonatal gut microbiota: A systematic review
  181. Small cell lung cancer transformation during antitumor therapies: A systematic review
  182. Research progress of gut microbiota and frailty syndrome
  183. Recommendations for outpatient activity in COVID-19 pandemic
  184. Rapid Communication
  185. Disparity in clinical characteristics between 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia and leptospirosis
  186. Use of microspheres in embolization for unruptured renal angiomyolipomas
  187. COVID-19 cases with delayed absorption of lung lesion
  188. A triple combination of treatments on moderate COVID-19
  189. Social networks and eating disorders during the Covid-19 pandemic
  190. Letter
  191. COVID-19, WHO guidelines, pedagogy, and respite
  192. Inflammatory factors in alveolar lavage fluid from severe COVID-19 pneumonia: PCT and IL-6 in epithelial lining fluid
  193. COVID-19: Lessons from Norway tragedy must be considered in vaccine rollout planning in least developed/developing countries
  194. What is the role of plasma cell in the lamina propria of terminal ileum in Good’s syndrome patient?
  195. Case Report
  196. Rivaroxaban triggered multifocal intratumoral hemorrhage of the cabozantinib-treated diffuse brain metastases: A case report and review of literature
  197. CTU findings of duplex kidney in kidney: A rare duplicated renal malformation
  198. Synchronous primary malignancy of colon cancer and mantle cell lymphoma: A case report
  199. Sonazoid-enhanced ultrasonography and pathologic characters of CD68 positive cell in primary hepatic perivascular epithelioid cell tumors: A case report and literature review
  200. Persistent SARS-CoV-2-positive over 4 months in a COVID-19 patient with CHB
  201. Pulmonary parenchymal involvement caused by Tropheryma whipplei
  202. Mediastinal mixed germ cell tumor: A case report and literature review
  203. Ovarian female adnexal tumor of probable Wolffian origin – Case report
  204. Rare paratesticular aggressive angiomyxoma mimicking an epididymal tumor in an 82-year-old man: Case report
  205. Perimenopausal giant hydatidiform mole complicated with preeclampsia and hyperthyroidism: A case report and literature review
  206. Primary orbital ganglioneuroblastoma: A case report
  207. Primary aortic intimal sarcoma masquerading as intramural hematoma
  208. Sustained false-positive results for hepatitis A virus immunoglobulin M: A case report and literature review
  209. Peritoneal loose body presenting as a hepatic mass: A case report and review of the literature
  210. Chondroblastoma of mandibular condyle: Case report and literature review
  211. Trauma-induced complete pacemaker lead fracture 8 months prior to hospitalization: A case report
  212. Primary intradural extramedullary extraosseous Ewing’s sarcoma/peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PIEES/PNET) of the thoracolumbar spine: A case report and literature review
  213. Computer-assisted preoperative planning of reduction of and osteosynthesis of scapular fracture: A case report
  214. High quality of 58-month life in lung cancer patient with brain metastases sequentially treated with gefitinib and osimertinib
  215. Rapid response of locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma to apatinib: A case report
  216. Retrieval of intrarenal coiled and ruptured guidewire by retrograde intrarenal surgery: A case report and literature review
  217. Usage of intermingled skin allografts and autografts in a senior patient with major burn injury
  218. Retraction
  219. Retraction on “Dihydromyricetin attenuates inflammation through TLR4/NF-kappa B pathway”
  220. Special Issue Computational Intelligence Methodologies Meets Recurrent Cancers - Part I
  221. An artificial immune system with bootstrap sampling for the diagnosis of recurrent endometrial cancers
  222. Breast cancer recurrence prediction with ensemble methods and cost-sensitive learning
Downloaded on 29.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/med-2021-0308/html
Scroll to top button