Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Group Design02:01

Group Design

9.3K
The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between...
9.3K
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs01:15

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

419
Bioequivalence experimental study designs play a pivotal role in testing the effectiveness of various treatments. Key among these are the repeated measures, cross-over, carry-over, and Latin square designs. In the repeated measures design, each subject receives all treatments, allowing for temporal comparisons. This type of design is useful in reducing variability but requires careful planning to avoid bias.The cross-over design, an economical method, involves sequential administration of...
419
Crossover Experiments01:16

Crossover Experiments

3.4K
Crossover experiments, also called the repeated-measurements design, is a study design in which all experimental units are exposed to all treatments in different periods. Crossover experiments are generally used in psychology, the pharmaceutical industry, agriculture, and medicine.
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.
3.4K
Operant Conditioning Intervention01:24

Operant Conditioning Intervention

738
Operant conditioning serves as a foundational principle in therapeutic interventions aimed at modifying maladaptive behaviors. Central to this approach is the notion that behaviors, both adaptive and maladaptive, are learned through reinforcement. By analyzing the environmental factors that reinforce problematic behaviors, clinicians can design interventions to weaken these reinforcements and replace maladaptive behaviors with healthier alternatives.
In operant conditioning, behaviors that are...
738
Blind Procedures02:07

Blind Procedures

10.8K
Ideally, the people who observe and record the children’s behavior are unaware of who was assigned to the experimental or control group, in order to control for experimenter bias. Experimenter bias refers to the possibility that a researcher’s expectations might skew the results of the study. Remember, conducting an experiment requires a lot of planning, and the people involved in the research project have a vested interest in supporting their hypotheses. If the observers knew which...
10.8K
Timing and Consequences on Behavior01:08

Timing and Consequences on Behavior

927
In operant conditioning, the timing of reinforcement is crucial. For animals like rats and cats, immediate reinforcement (within a few seconds) is much more effective than delayed reinforcement. For example, a food reward for a rat needs to follow within 30 seconds of pressing a bar to be effective. 
Humans, however, can respond to delayed reinforcers. We often make decisions between immediate small rewards and delayed larger rewards. This ability to delay gratification is a significant...
927

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Reasoning in machine vision by learning fast and slow thinking.

Nature communications·2026
Same author

Warm-started reinforcement learning for iterative 3D/2D liver registration.

International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery·2026
Same author

Real Time Evaluation of Whole Organ Perfusion by Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Ex Vivo Machine-Perfused Liver.

NMR in biomedicine·2026
Same author

Anticoagulation Practice and Risk of Portal Vein Thrombosis Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy or Total Pancreatectomy with Venous Resection: An International Multicentre Cohort Study.

Annals of surgery·2025
Same author

Correction: Deep hashing for global registration of preoperative CT and video images for laparoscopic liver surgery.

International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery·2025
Same author

Tube2FEM: a general-purpose highly automated pipeline for flow-related processes in (embedded) tubular objects.

Royal Society open science·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 2, 2026

Manufacturing and Using Piggy-back Multibarrel Electrodes for In vivo Pharmacological Manipulations of Neural Responses
06:52

Manufacturing and Using Piggy-back Multibarrel Electrodes for In vivo Pharmacological Manipulations of Neural Responses

Published on: January 18, 2013

11.8K

Conventional versus piggyback techniques: do they have different outcomes?

Mohamed Ghazaly1, Brian R Davidson1

  • 1Royal Free Hospital Trust and Royal Free, University College School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Progress in Transplantation (Aliso Viejo, Calif.)
|March 7, 2014
PubMed
Summary

The conventional liver transplant technique resulted in shorter intensive care unit stays and less need for mechanical ventilation compared to the piggyback method. These findings suggest advantages for the conventional approach in liver transplantation outcomes.

More Related Videos

Noninvasive, In-pen Approach Test for Laboratory-housed Pigs
06:30

Noninvasive, In-pen Approach Test for Laboratory-housed Pigs

Published on: June 5, 2019

10.4K
The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

1.4K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 2, 2026

Manufacturing and Using Piggy-back Multibarrel Electrodes for In vivo Pharmacological Manipulations of Neural Responses
06:52

Manufacturing and Using Piggy-back Multibarrel Electrodes for In vivo Pharmacological Manipulations of Neural Responses

Published on: January 18, 2013

11.8K
Noninvasive, In-pen Approach Test for Laboratory-housed Pigs
06:30

Noninvasive, In-pen Approach Test for Laboratory-housed Pigs

Published on: June 5, 2019

10.4K
The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

1.4K

Area of Science:

  • Hepatobiliary Surgery
  • Transplant Surgery
  • Surgical Techniques

Background:

  • Orthotopic liver transplantation involves two main surgical approaches: conventional and piggyback.
  • The conventional technique resects the native liver and retrohepatic inferior vena cava.
  • The piggyback technique preserves the recipient's vena cava, connecting the donor's vena cava to the recipient's hepatic veins, maintaining caval flow but requiring extensive liver dissection.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the clinical outcomes of conventional versus piggyback liver transplant techniques.
  • Primary outcomes included serious adverse events and complications.
  • Secondary outcomes assessed graft survival, quality of life, and resource utilization (ICU, hospital, mechanical ventilation).

Main Methods:

  • A comparative study involving 120 liver transplant patients from January 2007 to December 2008.
  • Patients were divided into two groups: conventional (n=93) and piggyback (n=27).
  • Outcomes were analyzed to identify significant differences between the two surgical methods.

Main Results:

  • No significant differences were observed in intraoperative/postoperative complications, graft survival at 3 and 12 months, quality of life, or hospital length of stay.
  • Patients undergoing the conventional technique showed notably shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stays (median 2 vs 3 days).
  • The conventional group also required fewer days of mechanical ventilation support (median 1 vs 2 days).

Conclusions:

  • The conventional orthotopic liver transplant technique demonstrated superior outcomes regarding reduced ICU length of stay.
  • Mechanical ventilation duration was significantly shorter with the conventional technique compared to the piggyback method.
  • These findings indicate potential benefits of the conventional approach for patient recovery and resource management in liver transplantation.