Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. Apr 28, 2015; 21(16): 4875-4882
Published online Apr 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i16.4875
Published online Apr 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i16.4875
Table 3 Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging findings between the traditional laparotomy method and the modified laparotomy method (Fisher exact test)
| Group | Successfully implanted | Unsuccessfully implanted | Successful implantation rate | With celiac implantation | No celiac implantation | Celiac implantation rate | With abdominal wall invasion | No abdominal wall invasion | Abdominal wall invasion rate |
| A (traditional laparotomy method) | 9 | 1 | 90% | 6 | 4 | 60% | 5 | 5 | 50% |
| B (modified laparotomy method) | 14 | 1 | 93.3% | 2 | 13 | 13.3% | 1 | 14 | 6.7% |
| P value | 1 | 0.028 | 0.023 |
- Citation: Chen Z, Kang Z, Xiao EH, Tong M, Xiao YD, Li HB. Comparison of two different laparotomy methods for modeling rabbit VX2 hepatocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(16): 4875-4882
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v21/i16/4875.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i16.4875