Toine M Lodewick1, Carsten W K P Arnoldussen2, Max J Lahaye2, Kim M C van Mierlo3, Ulf P Neumann4, Regina G Beets-Tan2, Cornelis H C Dejong4, Ronald M van Dam4. 1. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center & NUTRIM School of Nutrition & Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, University Hospital Aachen, Division of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Aachen, Germany. Electronic address: T.lodewick@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center & NUTRIM School of Nutrition & Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center & NUTRIM School of Nutrition & Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, University Hospital Aachen, Division of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Aachen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Volumetric assessment of the liver is essential in the prevention of postresectional liver failure after partial hepatectomy. Currently used methods are accurate but time-consuming. This study aimed to test a new automated method for preoperative volumetric liver assessment. METHODS: Patients who underwent a contrast enhanced portovenous phase CT-scan prior to hepatectomy in 2012 were included. Total liver volume (TLV) and future remnant liver volume (FRLV) were measured using TeraRecon Aquarius iNtuition(®) (autosegmentation) and OsiriX(®) (manual segmentation) software by two observers for each software package. Remnant liver volume percentage (RLV%) was calculated. Time needed to determine TLV and FRLV was measured. Inter-observer variability was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were included. There were no significant differences in measured volumes between OsiriX(®) and iNtuition(®). Moreover, there were significant correlations between the OsiriX(®) observers, the iNtuition(®) observers and between OsiriX(®) and iNtuition(®) post-processing systems (all R(2) > 0.97). The median time needed for complete liver volumetric analysis was 18.4 ± 4.9 min with OsiriX(®) and 5.8 ± 1.7 min using iNtuition(®) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both OsiriX(®) and iNtuition(®) liver volumetry are accurate and easily applicable. However, volumetric assessment of the liver with iNtuition(®) auto-segmentation is three times faster compared to manual OsiriX(®) volumetry.
BACKGROUND: Volumetric assessment of the liver is essential in the prevention of postresectional liver failure after partial hepatectomy. Currently used methods are accurate but time-consuming. This study aimed to test a new automated method for preoperative volumetric liver assessment. METHODS:Patients who underwent a contrast enhanced portovenous phase CT-scan prior to hepatectomy in 2012 were included. Total liver volume (TLV) and future remnant liver volume (FRLV) were measured using TeraRecon Aquarius iNtuition(®) (autosegmentation) and OsiriX(®) (manual segmentation) software by two observers for each software package. Remnant liver volume percentage (RLV%) was calculated. Time needed to determine TLV and FRLV was measured. Inter-observer variability was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were included. There were no significant differences in measured volumes between OsiriX(®) and iNtuition(®). Moreover, there were significant correlations between the OsiriX(®) observers, the iNtuition(®) observers and between OsiriX(®) and iNtuition(®) post-processing systems (all R(2) > 0.97). The median time needed for complete liver volumetric analysis was 18.4 ± 4.9 min with OsiriX(®) and 5.8 ± 1.7 min using iNtuition(®) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both OsiriX(®) and iNtuition(®) liver volumetry are accurate and easily applicable. However, volumetric assessment of the liver with iNtuition(®) auto-segmentation is three times faster compared to manual OsiriX(®) volumetry.
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: Kasia P Cieslak; Jurgen H Runge; Michal Heger; Jaap Stoker; Roelof J Bennink; Thomas M van Gulik Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 2.588
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: Joost R van der Vorst; Ronald M van Dam; Rogier S A van Stiphout; Maartje A van den Broek; Ilona H Hollander; Alfons G H Kessels; Cornelis H C Dejong Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Maartje A J van den Broek; Steven W M Olde Damink; Cornelis H C Dejong; Hauke Lang; Massimo Malagó; Rajiv Jalan; Fuat H Saner Journal: Liver Int Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: Simon A W G Dello; Jan H M B Stoot; Rogier S A van Stiphout; Johanne G Bloemen; Stephen J Wigmore; Cornelis H C Dejong; Ronald M van Dam Journal: World J Surg Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Ronald M Summers; Sungwon Lee; Daniel C Elton; Alexander H Yang; Christopher Koh; David E Kleiner; Meghan G Lubner Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2022-08-24