BACKGROUND: With the increasing numbers of living-related donor liver transplantation, accurate means of calculating standard liver volume (SLV) based on patient body indices becomes important. Three formulae reported in literature for this purpose have been derived from studies on Western and Japanese populations. AIM: To assess the existing formulae for calculation of SLV in Indian population. METHOD: Total liver volume (TLV) of 238 patients was measured using axial helical CT images obtained for conditions unrelated to the hepatobiliary system. Body surface area (BSA) was calculated from height and weight. Measurements obtained using CT were compared with the SLV calculated based on the previously reported formulae. RESULTS: Though there was significant difference (p< 0.001) between the TLV obtained by CT and the SLV calculated using the three formulae, they also showed good agreement. On an average the formula derived from the Japanese population underestimated the SLV by 63 (202) cc (p< 0.001). Regression models for SLV (SLV = 243 + [186 x BSA] + [11.4 x Weight], SLV = 375.23 + [14.24 x body weight], SLV = -204.092 + [874.461 x BSA]) were derived from the data obtained from our population. Age and gender had no effect on the SLV. CONCLUSIONS: Formulae derived from Japanese population for calculation of SLV is not suitable for the Indian population. The newly described formulae may prove useful in the Indian population.
BACKGROUND: With the increasing numbers of living-related donor liver transplantation, accurate means of calculating standard liver volume (SLV) based on patient body indices becomes important. Three formulae reported in literature for this purpose have been derived from studies on Western and Japanese populations. AIM: To assess the existing formulae for calculation of SLV in Indian population. METHOD: Total liver volume (TLV) of 238 patients was measured using axial helical CT images obtained for conditions unrelated to the hepatobiliary system. Body surface area (BSA) was calculated from height and weight. Measurements obtained using CT were compared with the SLV calculated based on the previously reported formulae. RESULTS: Though there was significant difference (p< 0.001) between the TLV obtained by CT and the SLV calculated using the three formulae, they also showed good agreement. On an average the formula derived from the Japanese population underestimated the SLV by 63 (202) cc (p< 0.001). Regression models for SLV (SLV = 243 + [186 x BSA] + [11.4 x Weight], SLV = 375.23 + [14.24 x body weight], SLV = -204.092 + [874.461 x BSA]) were derived from the data obtained from our population. Age and gender had no effect on the SLV. CONCLUSIONS: Formulae derived from Japanese population for calculation of SLV is not suitable for the Indian population. The newly described formulae may prove useful in the Indian population.
Authors: D Seppelt; T Ittermann; M L Kromrey; C Kolb; C vWahsen; P Heiss; H Völzke; R T Hoffmann; J P Kühn Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.379