OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate automated CT volumetry in the assessment of living-donor livers for transplant and to compare this technique with software-aided interactive volumetry and manual volumetry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hepatic CT scans of 18 consecutively registered prospective liver donors were obtained under a liver transplant protocol. Automated liver volumetry was developed on the basis of 3D active-contour segmentation. To establish reference standard liver volumes, a radiologist manually traced the contour of the liver on each CT slice. We compared the results obtained with automated and interactive volumetry with those obtained with the reference standard for this study, manual volumetry. RESULTS: The average interactive liver volume was 1553 ± 343 cm(3), and the average automated liver volume was 1520 ± 378 cm(3). The average manual volume was 1486 ± 343 cm(3). Both interactive and automated volumetric results had excellent agreement with manual volumetric results (intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.96 and 0.94). The average user time for automated volumetry was 0.57 ± 0.06 min/case, whereas those for interactive and manual volumetry were 27.3 ± 4.6 and 39.4 ± 5.5 min/case, the difference being statistically significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both interactive and automated volumetry are accurate for measuring liver volume with CT, but automated volumetry is substantially more efficient.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate automated CT volumetry in the assessment of living-donor livers for transplant and to compare this technique with software-aided interactive volumetry and manual volumetry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hepatic CT scans of 18 consecutively registered prospective liver donors were obtained under a liver transplant protocol. Automated liver volumetry was developed on the basis of 3D active-contour segmentation. To establish reference standard liver volumes, a radiologist manually traced the contour of the liver on each CT slice. We compared the results obtained with automated and interactive volumetry with those obtained with the reference standard for this study, manual volumetry. RESULTS: The average interactive liver volume was 1553 ± 343 cm(3), and the average automated liver volume was 1520 ± 378 cm(3). The average manual volume was 1486 ± 343 cm(3). Both interactive and automated volumetric results had excellent agreement with manual volumetric results (intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.96 and 0.94). The average user time for automated volumetry was 0.57 ± 0.06 min/case, whereas those for interactive and manual volumetry were 27.3 ± 4.6 and 39.4 ± 5.5 min/case, the difference being statistically significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both interactive and automated volumetry are accurate for measuring liver volume with CT, but automated volumetry is substantially more efficient.
Authors: Arne-Jörn Lemke; Martin Julius Brinkmann; Thomas Schott; Stefan Markus Niehues; Utz Settmacher; Peter Neuhaus; Roland Felix Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-07-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: A Radtke; G C Sotiropoulos; S Nadalin; E P Molmenti; T Schroeder; H Lang; F Saner; C Valentin-Gamazo; A Frilling; A Schenk; C E Broelsch; M Malagó Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2007-01-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: C Karlo; C S Reiner; P Stolzmann; S Breitenstein; B Marincek; D Weishaupt; T Frauenfelder Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2009-09-25 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Laurent Hermoye; Ismael Laamari-Azjal; Zhujiang Cao; Laurence Annet; Jan Lerut; Benoit M Dawant; Bernard E Van Beers Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-11-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kim M Olthoff; Jean C Emond; Tempie H Shearon; Greg Everson; Talia B Baker; Robert A Fisher; Chris E Freise; Brenda W Gillespie; James E Everhart Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2014-10-06 Impact factor: 5.799