ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2015
Comparison of two different laparotomy methods for modeling rabbit VX2 hepatocarcinoma.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Minimally Invasive Puncture Under Local Anesthesia to Open Laparotomy Under General Anesthesia for Establishing a Rabbit VX2 Liver Tumor Model.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2026Article
- Review
- Ultrasound-guided percutaneous implantation of rabbit VX2 carcinoma, using a coaxial technique and gelfoam pellet injection combination to establish a rabbit liver tumor model.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2022Article
- Comparison of anesthesia and tumor implantation methods for establishing rabbit VX2 hepatocarcinoma.American journal of translational research · 2019Article
- Modification of the method to establish a hepatic VX2 carcinoma model in rabbits.Oncology letters · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare two different laparotomy methods for modeling rabbit VX2 hepatocarcinoma.
methodsThirty New Zealand rabbits were randomly divided into two groups: A and B. Group A was assigned a traditional laparotomy method (embedding tumor fragments directly into the liver with tweezers). Group B was subjected to an improved laparotomy method (injection of tumor fragments into the liver through a 15 G syringe needle). The operation time, incision length, incision infection rate, and mortality rate were compared between the two groups after laparotomy. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed to evaluate tumor formation rates and the characteristics of the tumors 2 wk after laparotomy.
resultsThe mean operation times for the two groups (Group A vs Group B) were 23.2 ± 3.4 min vs 17.5 ± 2.9 min (P < 0.05); the incision length was 3.3 ± 0.5 cm vs 2.4 ± 0.6 cm (P < 0.05); and the mortality rate after 2 wk was 26.7% vs 0% (P < 0.05); all of these outcomes were significantly different between the two groups. The incision infection rates in the two groups were 6.7% vs 0% (P > 0.05), which were not significantly different. MRI performed after 2 weeks showed that the tumor formation rates in the two groups were 90.9% vs 93.3% (P > 0.05). These rates were not significantly different between the two groups. The celiac implantation rate and abdominal wall metastasis rate in the two groups were 36.4% vs 13.3% (P < 0.05) and 27.2% vs 6.7% (P < 0.05), respectively, which were significantly different between the two groups.
conclusionThe tumor formation rates were not significantly different between the two methods for modeling rabbit VX2 hepatocarcinoma. However, the improved method is recommended because it has certain advantages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.