BACKGROUND: Precise evaluation of the live donor's liver is the most important factor for the donor's safety and the recipient's prognosis in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Our study assessed the clinical value of computer-assisted three-dimensional quantitative assessment and a surgical planning tool for donor evaluation in LDLT. METHODS: Computer-assisted three-dimensional (3D) quantitative assessment was used to prospectively provide quantitative assessment of the graft volume for 123 consecutive donors of LDLT and its accuracy and efficiency were compared with that of the standard manual-traced method. A case of reduced monosegmental LDLT was also assessed and a surgical planning tool displayed the precise surgical plan to avoid large-for-size syndrome. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the detected graft volumes with computer-assisted 3D quantitative assessment and manual-traced approaches ((856.76 ± 162.18) cm(3) vs. (870.64 ± 172.54) cm(3), P = 0.796). Estimated volumes by either method had good correlation with the actual graft weight (r-manual-traced method: 0.921, r-3D quantitative assessment method: 0.896, both P < 0.001). However, the computer-assisted 3D quantitative assessment approach was significantly more efficient taking half the time of the manual-traced method ((16.91 ± 1.375) minutes vs. (39.27 ± 2.102) minutes, P < 0.01) to estimate graft volume. We performed the reduced monosegmental LDLT, a pediatric case, with the surgical planning tool (188 g graft in the operation, which was estimated at 208 cm(3) pre-operation). The recipient recovered without large-for-size syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-assisted 3D quantitative assessment provided precise evaluation of the graft volume. It also assisted surgeons with a better understanding of the hepatic 3D anatomy and was useful for the individual surgical planning tool.
BACKGROUND: Precise evaluation of the live donor's liver is the most important factor for the donor's safety and the recipient's prognosis in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Our study assessed the clinical value of computer-assisted three-dimensional quantitative assessment and a surgical planning tool for donor evaluation in LDLT. METHODS: Computer-assisted three-dimensional (3D) quantitative assessment was used to prospectively provide quantitative assessment of the graft volume for 123 consecutive donors of LDLT and its accuracy and efficiency were compared with that of the standard manual-traced method. A case of reduced monosegmental LDLT was also assessed and a surgical planning tool displayed the precise surgical plan to avoid large-for-size syndrome. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the detected graft volumes with computer-assisted 3D quantitative assessment and manual-traced approaches ((856.76 ± 162.18) cm(3) vs. (870.64 ± 172.54) cm(3), P = 0.796). Estimated volumes by either method had good correlation with the actual graft weight (r-manual-traced method: 0.921, r-3D quantitative assessment method: 0.896, both P < 0.001). However, the computer-assisted 3D quantitative assessment approach was significantly more efficient taking half the time of the manual-traced method ((16.91 ± 1.375) minutes vs. (39.27 ± 2.102) minutes, P < 0.01) to estimate graft volume. We performed the reduced monosegmental LDLT, a pediatric case, with the surgical planning tool (188 g graft in the operation, which was estimated at 208 cm(3) pre-operation). The recipient recovered without large-for-size syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-assisted 3D quantitative assessment provided precise evaluation of the graft volume. It also assisted surgeons with a better understanding of the hepatic 3D anatomy and was useful for the individual surgical planning tool.