PURPOSE: To investigate and describe the volume, position and shape of venous segments within the human liver and define their spatial correlation to the Couinaud segments (CS) and to the portal vein segments (PVS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was based on 64 routinely acquired CT scans of patients undergoing hepatic surgery. The final analysis included 19 patients. All 19 CT data sets were transformed into 3D liver models. Three venous segments were postulated reflecting the left, middle, and right hepatic vein. Each venous segment was furthermore divided in two venous subsegments. Volume, position and shape of these venous segments/subsegments were calculated and, finally, compared with the volume, position and shape of the Couinaud segments and the portal vein segments. RESULTS: The right hepatic vein covers with 539.8 +/- 119.5 ml (47.1%) the largest part of total liver volume followed by the middle hepatic vein 372.7 +/- 151.1 ml (32.5%) and the left hepatic vein 248 +/- 75.9 ml (20.4%). The Couinaud liver segments and portal vein segments 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 have consistent positional assignments within the three venous segments. Only the CS 4a, 4b, and 6 showed significantly different positions compared to the PVS 4a, 4b, and 6 (P < 0.03). The venous subsegments have a broad volumetric distribution reaching from 79 to 337 ml. There is no positional correlation of venous subsegments compared to Couinaud segments or portal vein segments at all (kappa < 0.75). In contrast, the venous segments/subsegments which can be assigned to either liver halve and either liver lobe have an identical volume, shape and position compared to the corresponding Couinaud liver segments (kappa > 0.75). CONCLUSION: The venous segments distinguish liver areas divided by the left and middle hepatic vein in exactly the same pattern as Couinaud segments and portal vein segments do. However, the comparison of shape and position of venous subsegments showed no correlation with both liver segmental approaches.
PURPOSE: To investigate and describe the volume, position and shape of venous segments within the human liver and define their spatial correlation to the Couinaud segments (CS) and to the portal vein segments (PVS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was based on 64 routinely acquired CT scans of patients undergoing hepatic surgery. The final analysis included 19 patients. All 19 CT data sets were transformed into 3D liver models. Three venous segments were postulated reflecting the left, middle, and right hepatic vein. Each venous segment was furthermore divided in two venous subsegments. Volume, position and shape of these venous segments/subsegments were calculated and, finally, compared with the volume, position and shape of the Couinaud segments and the portal vein segments. RESULTS: The right hepatic vein covers with 539.8 +/- 119.5 ml (47.1%) the largest part of total liver volume followed by the middle hepatic vein 372.7 +/- 151.1 ml (32.5%) and the left hepatic vein 248 +/- 75.9 ml (20.4%). The Couinaud liver segments and portal vein segments 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 have consistent positional assignments within the three venous segments. Only the CS 4a, 4b, and 6 showed significantly different positions compared to the PVS 4a, 4b, and 6 (P < 0.03). The venous subsegments have a broad volumetric distribution reaching from 79 to 337 ml. There is no positional correlation of venous subsegments compared to Couinaud segments or portal vein segments at all (kappa < 0.75). In contrast, the venous segments/subsegments which can be assigned to either liver halve and either liver lobe have an identical volume, shape and position compared to the corresponding Couinaud liver segments (kappa > 0.75). CONCLUSION: The venous segments distinguish liver areas divided by the left and middle hepatic vein in exactly the same pattern as Couinaud segments and portal vein segments do. However, the comparison of shape and position of venous subsegments showed no correlation with both liver segmental approaches.
Authors: Felix Nickel; Jonathan D Hendrie; Thomas Bruckner; Karl F Kowalewski; Hannes G Kenngott; Beat P Müller-Stich; Lars Fischer Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Michael Vouche; Robert J Lewandowski; Rohi Atassi; Khairuddin Memon; Vanessa L Gates; Robert K Ryu; Ron C Gaba; Mary F Mulcahy; Talia Baker; Kent Sato; Ryan Hickey; Daniel Ganger; Ahsun Riaz; Jonathan Fryer; Juan Carlos Caicedo; Michael Abecassis; Laura Kulik; Riad Salem Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Lars Fischer; Max Schoebinger; Jan-Oliver Neumann; Sascha Müller; Hans-Peter Meinzer; Markus W Büchler; Bruno M Schmied Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2008-08-21
Authors: Beat P Müller-Stich; Nicole Löb; Diana Wald; Thomas Bruckner; Hans-Peter Meinzer; Martina Kadmon; Markus W Büchler; Lars Fischer Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2013-09-25 Impact factor: 2.463