INTRODUCTION: Accurate pretransplant estimation of the recipient's standard liver volume (SLV) is important. The purpose of this study was to compare reported formulas for clinical estimation of liver volume among Japanese adults. METHODS: We reviewed data on 70 healthy adults (46 men, 24 women, ages 20 to 65 years old) evaluated for living donor liver transplantation. Liver volume (LV) was measured using two- or three-dimensional computed tomography volumetry (CTV). The formulas of DeLand (LV = 1020 x body surface area [BSA] - 220), Urata (LV = 706.2 x BSA + 2.4), Noda (LV = 50.12 x BW(0.78)), Heinemann (LV = 1072.8 x BSA - 345.7), Vauthey (LV = 18.51 x BW + 191.8) and Yoshizumi (LV = 772 x BSA) were applied to estimate LV. We calculated the differences for individual donors betwen CTV and LV estimated by each formula. RESULTS: Mean LVs as estimated by the formulae of DeLand and Heinemann et al were significantly greater (P < .01) than the mean CTV, while LV estimated by the formula of Urata was significantly less (P < .05) than the CTV. The formulas of DeLand and Heinemann overestimated LV, while the formula of Urata underestimated it. The formulae of Noda et al and Yoshizumi et al tended to underestimate the LV when the CTV was greater than 1600 cm(3). When the Yoshizumi formula was applied, the number of donors with an acceptable difference (+/-15%) between CTV and estimated LV was 55 (78.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The Yoshizumi formula was applicable, especially for patients with a BSA < 2.0, whereas the well-known Urata formula made LV underestimates.
INTRODUCTION: Accurate pretransplant estimation of the recipient's standard liver volume (SLV) is important. The purpose of this study was to compare reported formulas for clinical estimation of liver volume among Japanese adults. METHODS: We reviewed data on 70 healthy adults (46 men, 24 women, ages 20 to 65 years old) evaluated for living donor liver transplantation. Liver volume (LV) was measured using two- or three-dimensional computed tomography volumetry (CTV). The formulas of DeLand (LV = 1020 x body surface area [BSA] - 220), Urata (LV = 706.2 x BSA + 2.4), Noda (LV = 50.12 x BW(0.78)), Heinemann (LV = 1072.8 x BSA - 345.7), Vauthey (LV = 18.51 x BW + 191.8) and Yoshizumi (LV = 772 x BSA) were applied to estimate LV. We calculated the differences for individual donors betwen CTV and LV estimated by each formula. RESULTS: Mean LVs as estimated by the formulae of DeLand and Heinemann et al were significantly greater (P < .01) than the mean CTV, while LV estimated by the formula of Urata was significantly less (P < .05) than the CTV. The formulas of DeLand and Heinemann overestimated LV, while the formula of Urata underestimated it. The formulae of Noda et al and Yoshizumi et al tended to underestimate the LV when the CTV was greater than 1600 cm(3). When the Yoshizumi formula was applied, the number of donors with an acceptable difference (+/-15%) between CTV and estimated LV was 55 (78.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The Yoshizumi formula was applicable, especially for patients with a BSA < 2.0, whereas the well-known Urata formula made LV underestimates.
Authors: Jayme E Locke; Brittany A Shelton; Kim M Olthoff; Elizabeth A Pomfret; Kimberly A Forde; Deirdre Sawinski; Meagan Gray; Nancy L Ascher Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Tim R Glowka; Caroline Karlstetter; Tobias J Weismüller; Tim O Vilz; Christian P Strassburg; Jörg C Kalff; Steffen Manekeller Journal: Ann Transplant Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 1.530