BACKGROUND: Standardised measurement of remnant liver volume (RLV), where total liver volume (TLV) is calculated from patients' body surface area (RLV-sTLV), has been advocated. Extrapolating the model of living donor liver transplantation, we showed in a pilot study that the simplified RLV/body weight ratio (RLVBWR) was accurate in assessing the functional limit of hepatectomy. The aim of the study was to compare in a prospective series of extended right hepatectomy the predictive value of the RLVBWR and the RLV-sTLV at a cut-off of 0.5% (RLVBWR0.5%) and 20% (RLV-sTLV20%), respectively. METHODS: We studied the impact of RLVBWR0.5% and of RLV-sTLV20% on three months morbidity and mortality in 74 non-cirrhotic patients operated on for malignant tumours. Of these, 47 patients who were not included in the initial pilot study were enrolled in a prospective validation cohort to reappraise the predictive value of each method. RESULTS: RLVBWR and RLV-sTLV were highly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.966). Three months overall and severe morbidity (grade 3b-5) and mortality were significantly increased in groups RLVBWR ≤ 0.5% and RLV-sTLVs ≤ 20% compared to groups >0.5% and >20%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity in predicting death from liver failure were 100 and 84.1% for RLVBWR0.5% and 60 and 94.2% for RLV-sTLV20%, respectively. Similar results were observed in the validation cohort for the RLVBWR0.5% (lack of statistical power for RLV-sTLV as only 2 patients showed a RLV-sTLV ≤ 20%). CONCLUSIONS: The RLVBWR0.5% is a method of assessing the remnant liver that is simple and as reliable as the standardised RLV-sTLV20%.
BACKGROUND: Standardised measurement of remnant liver volume (RLV), where total liver volume (TLV) is calculated from patients' body surface area (RLV-sTLV), has been advocated. Extrapolating the model of living donor liver transplantation, we showed in a pilot study that the simplified RLV/body weight ratio (RLVBWR) was accurate in assessing the functional limit of hepatectomy. The aim of the study was to compare in a prospective series of extended right hepatectomy the predictive value of the RLVBWR and the RLV-sTLV at a cut-off of 0.5% (RLVBWR0.5%) and 20% (RLV-sTLV20%), respectively. METHODS: We studied the impact of RLVBWR0.5% and of RLV-sTLV20% on three months morbidity and mortality in 74 non-cirrhotic patients operated on for malignant tumours. Of these, 47 patients who were not included in the initial pilot study were enrolled in a prospective validation cohort to reappraise the predictive value of each method. RESULTS: RLVBWR and RLV-sTLV were highly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.966). Three months overall and severe morbidity (grade 3b-5) and mortality were significantly increased in groups RLVBWR ≤ 0.5% and RLV-sTLVs ≤ 20% compared to groups >0.5% and >20%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity in predicting death from liver failure were 100 and 84.1% for RLVBWR0.5% and 60 and 94.2% for RLV-sTLV20%, respectively. Similar results were observed in the validation cohort for the RLVBWR0.5% (lack of statistical power for RLV-sTLV as only 2 patients showed a RLV-sTLV ≤ 20%). CONCLUSIONS: The RLVBWR0.5% is a method of assessing the remnant liver that is simple and as reliable as the standardised RLV-sTLV20%.
Authors: M Ninomiya; K Shirabe; T Terashi; H Ijichi; Y Yonemura; N Harada; Y Soejima; A Taketomi; M Shimada; Y Maehara Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Nuh N Rahbari; O James Garden; Robert Padbury; Mark Brooke-Smith; Michael Crawford; Rene Adam; Moritz Koch; Masatoshi Makuuchi; Ronald P Dematteo; Christopher Christophi; Simon Banting; Val Usatoff; Masato Nagino; Guy Maddern; Thomas J Hugh; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Paul Greig; Myrddin Rees; Yukihiro Yokoyama; Sheung Tat Fan; Yuji Nimura; Joan Figueras; Lorenzo Capussotti; Markus W Büchler; Jürgen Weitz Journal: Surgery Date: 2011-01-14 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Yoji Kishi; Eddie K Abdalla; Yun Shin Chun; Daria Zorzi; David C Madoff; Michael J Wallace; Steven A Curley; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kasia P Cieslak; Roelof J Bennink; Wilmar de Graaf; Krijn P van Lienden; Marc G Besselink; Olivier R C Busch; Dirk J Gouma; Thomas M van Gulik Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Gregor A Stavrou; Marcello Donati; Mohammad H Fard-Aghaie; Martin Zeile; Tessa M Huber; Axel Stang; Karl J Oldhafer Journal: Visc Med Date: 2017-11-30