PURPOSE: To prospectively compare in vivo hepatic automated volumetry with manual volumetry and measured liver volume. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Institutional Review Board of Kumamoto University (Japan). Patient informed consent was obtained. Preoperative multisection computed tomography (CT) was performed in 35 consecutive patients (21 men, 14 women; mean age, 42.8 years; range, 28-72 years) with hepatic disease awaiting living related liver transplantation. The CT scans covered the entire liver at a section thickness of 2.5 mm. Liver volume was estimated by using both the automated and the manual methods. Actual liver weight was obtained for all patients and was converted to hepatic volume on the basis of a predetermined relationship between actual liver weight and volume. Processing time required for both methods was also recorded. Two-tailed paired t test, correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman tests were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Mean liver weight was 881.7 g +/- 249.8 (standard deviation), and mean measured liver volume was 956.00 cm(3) +/- 280.10. Volumetry performed with the automated and manual methods provided liver volumes of 982.99 cm(3) +/- 301.98 and 937.10 cm(3) +/- 301.31, respectively. There was good correlation between measured and estimated volumes obtained with the automated method (r = 0.792, P < .01). The manual and automated methods required 32.8 minutes +/- 6.9 and 4.4 minutes +/- 1.9, respectively. CONCLUSION: The automated method reduced the time required for volumetry of the liver and provided acceptable measurements. (c) RSNA, 2006.
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare in vivo hepatic automated volumetry with manual volumetry and measured liver volume. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Institutional Review Board of Kumamoto University (Japan). Patient informed consent was obtained. Preoperative multisection computed tomography (CT) was performed in 35 consecutive patients (21 men, 14 women; mean age, 42.8 years; range, 28-72 years) with hepatic disease awaiting living related liver transplantation. The CT scans covered the entire liver at a section thickness of 2.5 mm. Liver volume was estimated by using both the automated and the manual methods. Actual liver weight was obtained for all patients and was converted to hepatic volume on the basis of a predetermined relationship between actual liver weight and volume. Processing time required for both methods was also recorded. Two-tailed paired t test, correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman tests were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Mean liver weight was 881.7 g +/- 249.8 (standard deviation), and mean measured liver volume was 956.00 cm(3) +/- 280.10. Volumetry performed with the automated and manual methods provided liver volumes of 982.99 cm(3) +/- 301.98 and 937.10 cm(3) +/- 301.31, respectively. There was good correlation between measured and estimated volumes obtained with the automated method (r = 0.792, P < .01). The manual and automated methods required 32.8 minutes +/- 6.9 and 4.4 minutes +/- 1.9, respectively. CONCLUSION: The automated method reduced the time required for volumetry of the liver and provided acceptable measurements. (c) RSNA, 2006.
Authors: Kenji Suzuki; Ryan Kohlbrenner; Mark L Epstein; Ademola M Obajuluwa; Jianwu Xu; Masatoshi Hori Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Kenji Suzuki; Mark L Epstein; Ryan Kohlbrenner; Shailesh Garg; Masatoshi Hori; Aytekin Oto; Richard L Baron Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Amber L Simpson; David A Geller; Alan W Hemming; William R Jarnagin; Logan W Clements; Michael I D'Angelica; Prashanth Dumpuri; Mithat Gönen; Ivan Zendejas; Michael I Miga; James D Stefansic Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 6.113