Gaurav Chaubal1, Vibhor V Borkar2, Guruprasad Shetty3, Somnath Chattopadhyay3, Upasna Bahure3, Rashmi Badhe4, Ashlesha Udare4, Samir Shah2, Parijat Gupte2, Akash Shukla2, Mohammed Rela3, Ravi Mohanka3. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Global Hospital Superspeciality and Transplant Center, Parel, Mumbai, 400 012, India. gauravdr18@yahoo.co.in. 2. Department of Hepatology, Global Hospital Superspeciality and Transplant Center, Parel, Mumbai, 400 012, India. 3. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Global Hospital Superspeciality and Transplant Center, Parel, Mumbai, 400 012, India. 4. Department of Radiodiagnosis, Global Hospital Superspeciality and Transplant Center, Parel, Mumbai, 400 012, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A number of formulae to estimate standard liver volume (SLV) exist. However, studies have shown that only certain formulae are applicable to a particular patient population, whereas the other formulae have not been accurate in estimating the SLV. Aim of this study was to assess which formula is most accurate in estimating SLV in the western Indian population. METHODS: Data for donors of living donor liver transplantation from September 2014 to July 2015 was analyzed. Liver volumes were measured using computed tomography volumetry (CTV). SLV was calculated using formulae by the currently existing formulae. The mean SLV and CTV, percentage error in the SLV, and the correlation between SLV and CTV were calculated. RESULTS: Fifty-nine healthy subjects underwent donor hepatectomy [28 (47.5 %) males]. The mean age, mean body mass index (BMI), and mean body surface area (BSA) were 31.8 ± 8.8 years, 23.8 ± 3.7 kg/m(2), and 1.6 ± 0.4, respectively. Mean CTV was 1178 ± 246.8 mL. Difference between mean SLV and mean CTV ranged from -133.5 (±189) mL to 632.2 (±190.2) mL. Mean SLV was significantly different from CTV by all the formulae except Urata. Percentage of population whose SLV was within 15 % of the mean CTV ranged from 1.7 % to 67.8 %, with the highest percentage obtained by using Fu-Gui's formula. However, there was wide inter-individual variation on scatter plots between SLV and CTV by both these formulae. CONCLUSION: Currently existing formulae were not accurate in estimating SLV in our population.
BACKGROUND: A number of formulae to estimate standard liver volume (SLV) exist. However, studies have shown that only certain formulae are applicable to a particular patient population, whereas the other formulae have not been accurate in estimating the SLV. Aim of this study was to assess which formula is most accurate in estimating SLV in the western Indian population. METHODS: Data for donors of living donor liver transplantation from September 2014 to July 2015 was analyzed. Liver volumes were measured using computed tomography volumetry (CTV). SLV was calculated using formulae by the currently existing formulae. The mean SLV and CTV, percentage error in the SLV, and the correlation between SLV and CTV were calculated. RESULTS: Fifty-nine healthy subjects underwent donor hepatectomy [28 (47.5 %) males]. The mean age, mean body mass index (BMI), and mean body surface area (BSA) were 31.8 ± 8.8 years, 23.8 ± 3.7 kg/m(2), and 1.6 ± 0.4, respectively. Mean CTV was 1178 ± 246.8 mL. Difference between mean SLV and mean CTV ranged from -133.5 (±189) mL to 632.2 (±190.2) mL. Mean SLV was significantly different from CTV by all the formulae except Urata. Percentage of population whose SLV was within 15 % of the mean CTV ranged from 1.7 % to 67.8 %, with the highest percentage obtained by using Fu-Gui's formula. However, there was wide inter-individual variation on scatter plots between SLV and CTV by both these formulae. CONCLUSION: Currently existing formulae were not accurate in estimating SLV in our population.
Entities:
Keywords:
Computed tomography volumetry; Living donor liver transplantation; Standard liver volume
Authors: See Ching Chan; Chi Leung Liu; Chung Mau Lo; Banny K Lam; Evelyn W Lee; Yik Wong; Sheung Tat Fan Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-04-14 Impact factor: 5.742
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: T Kiuchi; M Kasahara; K Uryuhara; Y Inomata; S Uemoto; K Asonuma; H Egawa; S Fujita; M Hayashi; K Tanaka Journal: Transplantation Date: 1999-01-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: R J Ploeg; A M D'Alessandro; S J Knechtle; M D Stegall; J D Pirsch; R M Hoffmann; T Sasaki; H W Sollinger; F O Belzer; M Kalayoglu Journal: Transplantation Date: 1993-04 Impact factor: 4.939