Patient Characteristics.

<p>*mean ± standard deviation. m = male; f = female; BMI = body mass index.</p

Feedback and feedforward connectivity in the frontoparietal network calculated by the evolutional map approach (EMA) and symbolic transfer entropy (STE).

<p>(A) The asymmetry between feedback and feedforward connectivity in the three states (baseline, induction and anesthetized) using the EMA method. (B–C) Absolute values of feedback (B) and feedforward (C) connectivity across the three states. The feedback dominance in the baseline was reduced due to inhibition of feedback phase modulation after induction. (D) The asymmetry between the feedback and feedforward connectivity in the three states (baseline, induction and anesthetized) using the STE method. (E–F) Absolute values for feedback (E) and feedforward (F) STE across the three states. The feedback dominance in the baseline state was reduced by inhibition of feedback STE after induction. However, feedforward STE values were also reduced in the anesthetized state. The errorbar denotes the standard error (*: p<0.05, **: p<0.01, ***: p<0.001, n = 18 patients).</p

Estimation of bias caused by power spectral differences between frontal and parietal regions.

<p>The biases caused by the power spectral difference between frontal and parietal regions were denoted with mean and standard error over 18 patients in for EMA (A) and STE (B). Connectivity measures based on the original EEG data (feedback-squares, feedforward-circles) show that the biases do not account for changes across states. n = 18 patients.</p

Post-anesthetic recovery of feedback symbolic transfer entropy (STE).

<p>The schematic diagrams in the top row represent the changing asymmetry between feedback and feedforward STE over the five states. A significant change in feedforward STE occurred only between anesthetized and post-recovery states (which is not presented in this figure). The feedback and feedforward STE are denoted with striped and solid colors, respectively, for each state. Error bar denotes the standard error (*: p<0.05, **: p<0.01,***: p<0.001, n = 18 patients).</p

Comparison of acute kidney injury between open and laparoscopic liver resection: Propensity score analysis

<div><p>The inflammatory response has been shown to be a major contributor to acute kidney injury. Considering that laparoscopic surgery is beneficial in reducing the inflammatory response, we compared the incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury between laparoscopic liver resection and open liver resection. Among 1173 patients who underwent liver resection surgery, 222 of 926 patients who underwent open liver resection were matched with 222 of 247 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection, by using propensity score analysis. The incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury assessed according to the creatinine criteria of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes definition was compared between those 1:1 matched groups. A total 77 (6.6%) cases of postoperative acute kidney injury occurred. Before matching, the incidence of acute kidney injury after laparoscopic liver resection was significantly lower than that after open liver resection [1.6% (4/247) vs. 7.9% (73/926), <i>P</i> < 0.001]. After 1:1 matching, the incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury was still significantly lower after laparoscopic liver resection than after open liver resection [1.8% (4/222) vs. 6.3% (14/222), <i>P</i> = 0.008; odds ratio 0.273, 95% confidence interval 0.088–0.842, <i>P</i> = 0.024]. The postoperative inflammatory marker was also lower in laparoscopic liver resection than in open liver resection in matched set data (white blood cell count 12.7 ± 4.0 × 10³/μL vs. 14.9 ± 3.9 × 10³/μL, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Our findings suggest that the laparoscopic technique, by decreasing the inflammatory response, may reduce the occurrence of postoperative acute kidney injury during liver resection surgery.</p></div

Monitoring Epochs used for Analysis.

<p>Monitoring Epochs used for Analysis.</p

Patient demographics and perioperative variables before and after matching.

<p>Patient demographics and perioperative variables before and after matching.</p

Comparison of postoperative acute kidney injury.

<p>The overall incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury was significantly lower after laparoscopic liver resection than after open liver resection. This result was consistent between (a) before and (b) after matching. LLR, laparoscopic liver resection; OLR, open liver resection.</p

Comparison of perioperative inflammatory markers.

<p>Comparison of maximum neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and white blood cell count within postoperative day 7 between laparoscopic and open liver resection (a, c) before and (b, d) after matching. In matched set data, white blood cell count was significantly lower in the LLR group during the first postoperative week. LLR, laparoscopic liver resection; OLR, open liver resection; WBC, white blood cell; POD, postoperative day.</p

Comparison of inflammatory markers, kidney outcome, and hospital course.

<p>Comparison of inflammatory markers, kidney outcome, and hospital course.</p