OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to compare measured and estimated volumetry prior to liver resection. METHODS: Data for consecutive patients submitted to major liver resection for colorectal liver metastases at two centres during 2004-2012 were reviewed. All patients underwent volumetric analysis to define the measured total liver volume (mTLV) and measured future liver remnant ratio (mR(FLR)). The estimated total liver volume (eTLV) standardized to body surface area and estimated future liver remnant ratio (eR(FLR)) were calculated. Descriptive statistics were generated and compared. A difference between mR(FLR) and eR(FLR) of ±5% was considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: Data for a total of 116 patients were included. All patients underwent major resection and 51% underwent portal vein embolization. The mean difference between mTLV and eTLV was 157 ml (P < 0.0001), whereas the mean difference between mR(FLR) and eR(FLR) was -1.7% (P = 0.013). By linear regression, eTLV was only moderately predictive of mTLV (R(2) = 0.35). The distribution of differences between mR(FLR) and eR(FLR) demonstrated that the formula over- or underestimated mR(FLR) by ≥5% in 31.9% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Measured and estimated volumetry yielded differences in the FLR of ≥5% in almost one-third of patients, potentially affecting clinical decision making. Estimated volumetry should be used cautiously and cannot be recommended for general use.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to compare measured and estimated volumetry prior to liver resection. METHODS: Data for consecutive patients submitted to major liver resection for colorectal liver metastases at two centres during 2004-2012 were reviewed. All patients underwent volumetric analysis to define the measured total liver volume (mTLV) and measured future liver remnant ratio (mR(FLR)). The estimated total liver volume (eTLV) standardized to body surface area and estimated future liver remnant ratio (eR(FLR)) were calculated. Descriptive statistics were generated and compared. A difference between mR(FLR) and eR(FLR) of ±5% was considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: Data for a total of 116 patients were included. All patients underwent major resection and 51% underwent portal vein embolization. The mean difference between mTLV and eTLV was 157 ml (P < 0.0001), whereas the mean difference between mR(FLR) and eR(FLR) was -1.7% (P = 0.013). By linear regression, eTLV was only moderately predictive of mTLV (R(2) = 0.35). The distribution of differences between mR(FLR) and eR(FLR) demonstrated that the formula over- or underestimated mR(FLR) by ≥5% in 31.9% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Measured and estimated volumetry yielded differences in the FLR of ≥5% in almost one-third of patients, potentially affecting clinical decision making. Estimated volumetry should be used cautiously and cannot be recommended for general use.
Authors: S Emre; Y Soejima; G Altaca; M Facciuto; T M Fishbein; P A Sheiner; M E Schwartz; C M Miller Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Eddie K Abdalla; Dorota A Doherty; Philippe Gertsch; Marc J Fenstermacher; Evelyne M Loyer; Jan Lerut; Roland Materne; Xuemei Wang; Arthur Encarnacion; Delise Herron; Christian Mathey; Giovanni Ferrari; Chuslip Charnsangavej; Kim-Anh Do; Alban Denys Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: John T Mullen; Dario Ribero; Srinevas K Reddy; Matteo Donadon; Daria Zorzi; Shiva Gautam; Eddie K Abdalla; Steven A Curley; Lorenzo Capussotti; Bryan M Clary; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: K Urata; S Kawasaki; H Matsunami; Y Hashikura; T Ikegami; S Ishizone; Y Momose; A Komiyama; M Makuuchi Journal: Hepatology Date: 1995-05 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Jimme K Wiggers; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Kasia P Cieslak; Alexandre Doussot; David van Klaveren; Peter J Allen; Marc G Besselink; Olivier R Busch; Michael I D'Angelica; Ronald P DeMatteo; Dirk J Gouma; T Peter Kingham; Thomas M van Gulik; William R Jarnagin Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Boris Guiu; Emmanuel Deshayes; Fabrizio Panaro; Florian Sanglier; Caterina Cusumano; Astrid Herrerro; Olivia Sgarbura; Nicolas Molinari; François Quenet; Christophe Cassinotto Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-05
Authors: Akshat Gotra; Lojan Sivakumaran; Gabriel Chartrand; Kim-Nhien Vu; Franck Vandenbroucke-Menu; Claude Kauffmann; Samuel Kadoury; Benoît Gallix; Jacques A de Guise; An Tang Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2017-06-14
Authors: F Rassam; E Roos; K P van Lienden; J E van Hooft; H J Klümpen; G van Tienhoven; R J Bennink; M R Engelbrecht; A Schoorlemmer; U H W Beuers; J Verheij; M G Besselink; O R Busch; T M van Gulik Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 3.445