Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-associated death globally. Liver transplantation (LT) has emerged as a key treatment for patients with HCC, and the Milan criteria have been adopted as the cornerstone of the selection policy. To allow more patients to benefit from LT, a number of expanded criteria have been proposed, many of which use radiologic morphological characteristics with larger and more tumors as surrogates to predict outcomes. Other groups developed indices incorporating biological variables and dynamic markers of response to locoregional treatment. These expanded selection criteria achieved satisfactory results with limited liver supplies. In addition, a number of prognostic models have been developed using clinicopathological characteristics, imaging radiomics features, genetic data, and advanced techniques such as artificial intelligence. These models could improve prognostic estimation, establish surveillance strategies, and bolster long-term outcomes in patients with HCC. In this study, we reviewed the latest findings and achievements regarding the selection criteria and post-transplant prognostic models for LT in patients with HCC.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-associated death globally. Liver transplantation (LT) has emerged as a key treatment for patients with HCC, and the Milan criteria have been adopted as the cornerstone of the selection policy. To allow more patients to benefit from LT, a number of expanded criteria have been proposed, many of which use radiologic morphological characteristics with larger and more tumors as surrogates to predict outcomes. Other groups developed indices incorporating biological variables and dynamic markers of response to locoregional treatment. These expanded selection criteria achieved satisfactory results with limited liver supplies. In addition, a number of prognostic models have been developed using clinicopathological characteristics, imaging radiomics features, genetic data, and advanced techniques such as artificial intelligence. These models could improve prognostic estimation, establish surveillance strategies, and bolster long-term outcomes in patients with HCC. In this study, we reviewed the latest findings and achievements regarding the selection criteria and post-transplant prognostic models for LT in patients with HCC.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-associated death globally. Liver transplantation (LT) has emerged as a key treatment for patients with HCC, and the Milan criteria have been adopted as the cornerstone of the selection policy. To allow more patients to benefit from LT, a number of expanded criteria have been proposed, many of which use radiologic morphological characteristics with larger and more tumors as surrogates to predict outcomes. Other groups developed indices incorporating biological variables and dynamic markers of response to locoregional treatment. These expanded selection criteria achieved satisfactory results with limited liver supplies. In addition, a number of prognostic models have been developed using clinicopathological characteristics, imaging radiomics features, genetic data, and advanced techniques such as artificial intelligence. These models could improve prognostic estimation, establish surveillance strategies, and bolster long-term outcomes in patients with HCC. In this study, we reviewed the latest findings and achievements regarding the selection criteria and post-transplant prognostic models for LT in patients with HCC.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of 2 endoscopic spine surgeries on the biomechanical properties of normal and osteoporotic spines. Methods: Based on computed tomography images of a healthy adult volunteer, 6 finite element models were created. After validating the normal intact model, a concentrated force of 400 N and a moment of 7.5 Nm were exerted on the upper surface of L3 to simulate 6 physiological activities of the spine. Five types of indices were used to assess the biomechanical properties of the 6 models, range of motion (ROM), maximum displacement value, intervertebral disc stress, maximum stress value, and articular protrusion stress, and by combining them with finite element stress cloud. Results: In normal and osteoporotic spines, there was no meaningful change in ROM or disc stress in the 2 surgical models for the 6 motion states. Model N1 (osteoporotic percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy model) showed a decrease in maximum displacement value of 20.28% in right lateral bending. Model M2 (unilateral biportal endoscopic model) increased maximum displacement values of 16.88% and 17.82% during left and right lateral bending, respectively. The maximum stress value of L4–5 increased by 11.72% for model M2 during left rotation. In addition, using the same surgical approach, ROM, maximum displacement values, disc stress, and maximum stress values were more significant in the osteoporotic model than in the normal model. Conclusion In both normal and osteoporotic spines, both surgical approaches were less disruptive to the physiologic structure of the spine. Furthermore, using the same endoscopic spine surgery, normal spine biomechanical properties are superior to osteoporotic spines.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of 2 endoscopic spine surgeries on the biomechanical properties of normal and osteoporotic spines. Methods: Based on computed tomography images of a healthy adult volunteer, 6 finite element models were created. After validating the normal intact model, a concentrated force of 400 N and a moment of 7.5 Nm were exerted on the upper surface of L3 to simulate 6 physiological activities of the spine. Five types of indices were used to assess the biomechanical properties of the 6 models, range of motion (ROM), maximum displacement value, intervertebral disc stress, maximum stress value, and articular protrusion stress, and by combining them with finite element stress cloud. Results: In normal and osteoporotic spines, there was no meaningful change in ROM or disc stress in the 2 surgical models for the 6 motion states. Model N1 (osteoporotic percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy model) showed a decrease in maximum displacement value of 20.28% in right lateral bending. Model M2 (unilateral biportal endoscopic model) increased maximum displacement values of 16.88% and 17.82% during left and right lateral bending, respectively. The maximum stress value of L4–5 increased by 11.72% for model M2 during left rotation. In addition, using the same surgical approach, ROM, maximum displacement values, disc stress, and maximum stress values were more significant in the osteoporotic model than in the normal model. Conclusion In both normal and osteoporotic spines, both surgical approaches were less disruptive to the physiologic structure of the spine. Furthermore, using the same endoscopic spine surgery, normal spine biomechanical properties are superior to osteoporotic spines.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of 2 endoscopic spine surgeries on the biomechanical properties of normal and osteoporotic spines. Methods: Based on computed tomography images of a healthy adult volunteer, 6 finite element models were created. After validating the normal intact model, a concentrated force of 400 N and a moment of 7.5 Nm were exerted on the upper surface of L3 to simulate 6 physiological activities of the spine. Five types of indices were used to assess the biomechanical properties of the 6 models, range of motion (ROM), maximum displacement value, intervertebral disc stress, maximum stress value, and articular protrusion stress, and by combining them with finite element stress cloud. Results: In normal and osteoporotic spines, there was no meaningful change in ROM or disc stress in the 2 surgical models for the 6 motion states. Model N1 (osteoporotic percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy model) showed a decrease in maximum displacement value of 20.28% in right lateral bending. Model M2 (unilateral biportal endoscopic model) increased maximum displacement values of 16.88% and 17.82% during left and right lateral bending, respectively. The maximum stress value of L4–5 increased by 11.72% for model M2 during left rotation. In addition, using the same surgical approach, ROM, maximum displacement values, disc stress, and maximum stress values were more significant in the osteoporotic model than in the normal model. Conclusion In both normal and osteoporotic spines, both surgical approaches were less disruptive to the physiologic structure of the spine. Furthermore, using the same endoscopic spine surgery, normal spine biomechanical properties are superior to osteoporotic spines.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of 2 endoscopic spine surgeries on the biomechanical properties of normal and osteoporotic spines. Methods: Based on computed tomography images of a healthy adult volunteer, 6 finite element models were created. After validating the normal intact model, a concentrated force of 400 N and a moment of 7.5 Nm were exerted on the upper surface of L3 to simulate 6 physiological activities of the spine. Five types of indices were used to assess the biomechanical properties of the 6 models, range of motion (ROM), maximum displacement value, intervertebral disc stress, maximum stress value, and articular protrusion stress, and by combining them with finite element stress cloud. Results: In normal and osteoporotic spines, there was no meaningful change in ROM or disc stress in the 2 surgical models for the 6 motion states. Model N1 (osteoporotic percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy model) showed a decrease in maximum displacement value of 20.28% in right lateral bending. Model M2 (unilateral biportal endoscopic model) increased maximum displacement values of 16.88% and 17.82% during left and right lateral bending, respectively. The maximum stress value of L4–5 increased by 11.72% for model M2 during left rotation. In addition, using the same surgical approach, ROM, maximum displacement values, disc stress, and maximum stress values were more significant in the osteoporotic model than in the normal model. Conclusion In both normal and osteoporotic spines, both surgical approaches were less disruptive to the physiologic structure of the spine. Furthermore, using the same endoscopic spine surgery, normal spine biomechanical properties are superior to osteoporotic spines.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of 2 endoscopic spine surgeries on the biomechanical properties of normal and osteoporotic spines. Methods: Based on computed tomography images of a healthy adult volunteer, 6 finite element models were created. After validating the normal intact model, a concentrated force of 400 N and a moment of 7.5 Nm were exerted on the upper surface of L3 to simulate 6 physiological activities of the spine. Five types of indices were used to assess the biomechanical properties of the 6 models, range of motion (ROM), maximum displacement value, intervertebral disc stress, maximum stress value, and articular protrusion stress, and by combining them with finite element stress cloud. Results: In normal and osteoporotic spines, there was no meaningful change in ROM or disc stress in the 2 surgical models for the 6 motion states. Model N1 (osteoporotic percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy model) showed a decrease in maximum displacement value of 20.28% in right lateral bending. Model M2 (unilateral biportal endoscopic model) increased maximum displacement values of 16.88% and 17.82% during left and right lateral bending, respectively. The maximum stress value of L4–5 increased by 11.72% for model M2 during left rotation. In addition, using the same surgical approach, ROM, maximum displacement values, disc stress, and maximum stress values were more significant in the osteoporotic model than in the normal model. Conclusion In both normal and osteoporotic spines, both surgical approaches were less disruptive to the physiologic structure of the spine. Furthermore, using the same endoscopic spine surgery, normal spine biomechanical properties are superior to osteoporotic spines.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 is also referred to as a typical viral septic pulmonary infection by 2019-nCoV. However, little is known regarding its characteristics in terms of systemic inflammation and organ injury, especially compared with classical bacterial sepsis. This article aims to investigate the clinical characteristics and prognosis between COVID-19-associated sepsis and classic bacterial-induced sepsis. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, septic patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU) of a government-designed therapy center in Shenzhen, China between January 14, 2020 and March 10, 2020, and septic patients induced by carbapenem-resistant klebsiella pneumonia (CrKP) admitted to the ICU of the Second People's Hospital of Shenzhen, China between January 1, 2014 and October 30, 2019 were enrolled. Demographic and clinical parameters including comorbidities, critical illness scores, treatment, and laboratory data, as well as prognosis were compared between the two groups. Risk factors for mortality and survival rate were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression and survival curve, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients with COVID-19 and 63 patients with CrKP were enrolled. A direct comparison between the two groups demonstrated more serious degrees of primary lung injury following 2019-nCoV infection (indicated by lower PaO CONCLUSION Critical COVID-19 shares clinical characteristics with classical bacterial sepsis, but the degree of systemic inflammatory response, secondary organ damage and mortality rate are less severe. However, following 2019-nCoV infection, the level of immunosuppression may be increased and thus induce in more death at the later stage of patients' hospitalstay.
COVID-19 ; Carbapenems ; Hospital Mortality ; Humans ; Intensive Care Units ; Klebsiella ; Prognosis ; Retrospective Studies ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Sepsis

Animals ; Inflammation Mediators/metabolism* ; Macrophages/metabolism* ; Mice ; Stromal Interaction Molecule 1/metabolism*