Usage of 64-detector-row spiral computed tomography volumetry in preoperative volume prediction in living donor liver transplantation in children

Li, Yingcun; Hu, Yan; Zhang, Mingman; Jin, Xianqing; Fan, Xiaoxi; Pu, Cong-lun; Guo, Chunbao; Kang, Qi; Dai, Xiaoke; Deng, Yuhua

doi:10.1007/s00383-010-2830-z

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sakei et al [48] proposed another formula to calculate the standard liver volume of children undergoing liver transplantation (standard liver volume = 689.9 × body surface area -24.7), using CT images as a reference. Li et al [49] proposed the use of an equation (intraoperative weight = 0.844 × preoperative CT volume + 5.271) that can be useful to predict the actual graft weight (r = 0.885). Ribero et al [50] reported that the use of an estimated TLV, measured on the basis of correlation existing with body surface area (-794.41 + 1267.28 × body surface area), can identify about 11% of patients in whom liver volumetry directly calculated by CT images underestimates the risk of hepatic insufficiency.…”

Section: Imaging: Which Modality Should Be Chosen?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Liver volumetry: Is imaging reliable? Personal experience and review of the literature

D’Onofrio

Robertis

Demozzi

et al. 2014

WJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The amount of the future liver remnant volume is fundamental for hepato-biliary surgery, representing an important potential risk-factor for the development of post-hepatectomy liver failure. Despite this, there is no uniform consensus about the amount of hepatic parenchyma that can be safely resected, nor about the modality that should be chosen for this evaluation. The pre-operative evaluation of hepatic volume, along with a precise identification of vascular and biliar anatomy and variants, are therefore necessary to reduce surgical complications, especially for extensive resections. Some studies have tried to validate imaging methods [ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging] for the assessment of liver volume, but there is no clear evidence about the most accurate method for this evaluation. Furthermore, this volumetric evaluation seems to have a certain degree of error, tending to overestimate the actual hepatic volume, therefore some conversion factors, which should give a more reliable evaluation of liver volume, have been proposed. It is widespread among non-radiologists the use of independent software for an off-site volumetric analysis, performed on digital imaging and communications in medicine images with their own personal computer, but very few studies have provided a validation of these methods. Moreover, while the pre-transplantation volumetric assessment is fundamental, it remains unclear whether it should be routinely performed in all patients undergoing liver resection. In this editorial the role of imaging in the estimation of liver volume is discussed, providing a review of the most recent literature and a brief personal series of correlations between liver volumes and resection specimens' weight, in order to assess the precision of the volumetric CT evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Imaging: Which Modality Should Be Chosen?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Liver volumetry: Is imaging reliable? Personal experience and review of the literature

D’Onofrio

Robertis

Demozzi

et al. 2014

WJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For patients with end-stage liver disease, liver transplantation is the most effective treatment [2] . The great increase in the number of patients awaiting liver transplantation during the past years has led to a significant shortage of cadaveric organs [3] . Living-related liver transplantation has emerged as a valuable alternative, and allows healthy adults to donate a part of their own liver to a compatible recipient [4] , [5] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Estimation of Graft Size for Living-Related Liver Transplantation: First Results of a Semi-Automated Interactive Software for CT-Volumetry

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo evaluate accuracy of estimated graft size for living-related liver transplantation using a semi-automated interactive software for CT-volumetry.Materials and MethodsSixteen donors for living-related liver transplantation (11 male; mean age: 38.2±9.6 years) underwent contrast-enhanced CT prior to graft removal. CT-volumetry was performed using a semi-automated interactive software (P), and compared with a manual commercial software (TR). For P, liver volumes were provided either with or without vessels. For TR, liver volumes were provided always with vessels. Intraoperative weight served as reference standard. Major study goals included analyses of volumes using absolute numbers, linear regression analyses and inter-observer agreements. Minor study goals included the description of the software workflow: degree of manual correction, speed for completion, and overall intuitiveness using five-point Likert scales: 1–markedly lower/faster/higher for P compared with TR, 2–slightly lower/faster/higher for P compared with TR, 3–identical for P and TR, 4–slightly lower/faster/higher for TR compared with P, and 5–markedly lower/faster/higher for TR compared with P.ResultsLiver segments II/III, II–IV and V–VIII served in 6, 3, and 7 donors as transplanted liver segments. Volumes were 642.9±368.8 ml for TR with vessels, 623.8±349.1 ml for P with vessels, and 605.2±345.8 ml for P without vessels (P<0.01). Regression equations between intraoperative weights and volumes were y = 0.94x+30.1 (R2 = 0.92; P<0.001) for TR with vessels, y = 1.00x+12.0 (R2 = 0.92; P<0.001) for P with vessels, and y = 1.01x+28.0 (R2 = 0.92; P<0.001) for P without vessels. Inter-observer agreement showed a bias of 1.8 ml for TR with vessels, 5.4 ml for P with vessels, and 4.6 ml for P without vessels. For the degree of manual correction, speed for completion and overall intuitiveness, scale values were 2.6±0.8, 2.4±0.5 and 2.ConclusionsCT-volumetry performed with P can predict accurately graft size for living-related liver transplantation while improving workflow compared with TR.

show abstract

“…The preoperative liver volume measurements based on 3D anatomy imaging have been shown to agree with the actual volume of the liver resected at operation (17)(18)(19). The median volume difference between the portalvein-based and hepatic-vein-based anatomies in S6 was 73 mL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Perfusion and drainage difference in the liver parenchyma: Regional plane in segment 6

Abe

Yamazaki

Moriguchi

et al. 2017

BST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Usage of 64-detector-row spiral computed tomography volumetry in preoperative volume prediction in living donor liver transplantation in children

Abstract: Liver volume calculated by 64-detector-row spiral CT preoperatively can predict the actual graft weight, which is very useful in donor selection in LDLT.

Cited by 12 publications

References 20 publications

Liver volumetry: Is imaging reliable? Personal experience and review of the literature

Liver volumetry: Is imaging reliable? Personal experience and review of the literature

Accuracy of Estimation of Graft Size for Living-Related Liver Transplantation: First Results of a Semi-Automated Interactive Software for CT-Volumetry

Perfusion and drainage difference in the liver parenchyma: Regional plane in segment 6

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About