Pallavi Pandey1, Ankur Pandey1, Mary Dillhoff2, Carl Schmidt2, Ihab R Kamel1, Timothy M Pawlik3. 1. Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, 395 W. 12th Ave., Suite 670, Columbus, OH, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, 395 W. 12th Ave., Suite 670, Columbus, OH, USA. tim.pawlik@osumc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hepatic resection is performed for various benign and malignant liver tumors. Over the last several decades, there have been improvements in the surgical technique and postoperative care of patients undergoing liver surgery. Despite this, liver failure following an extended hepatic resection remains a critical potential postoperative complication. Patients with underlying parenchymal liver diseases are at particular risk of liver failure due to impaired liver regeneration with an associated mortality risk as high as 60 to 90%. In addition, live donor liver transplantation requires a thorough presurgical assessment of the donor liver to minimize the risk of postoperative complications. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Recently, cross-sectional imaging assessment of diffuse liver diseases has gained momentum due to its ability to provide both anatomical and functional assessments of normal and abnormal tissues. Various imaging techniques are being employed to assess diffuse liver diseases including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and ultrasound (US). MRI has the ability to detect abnormal intracellular and molecular processes and tissue architecture. CT has a high spatial resolution, while US provides real-time imaging, is inexpensive, and readily available. We herein review current state-of-the-art techniques to assess the underlying non-tumorous liver. Specifically, we summarize current approaches to evaluating diffuse liver diseases including fatty liver alcoholic or non-alcoholic (NAFLD, AFLD), hepatic fibrosis (HF), and iron deposition (ID) with a focus on advanced imaging techniques for non-invasive assessment along with their implications for patient management. In addition, the role of and techniques to assess hepatic volume in hepatic surgery are discussed.
INTRODUCTION: Hepatic resection is performed for various benign and malignant liver tumors. Over the last several decades, there have been improvements in the surgical technique and postoperative care of patients undergoing liver surgery. Despite this, liver failure following an extended hepatic resection remains a critical potential postoperative complication. Patients with underlying parenchymal liver diseases are at particular risk of liver failure due to impaired liver regeneration with an associated mortality risk as high as 60 to 90%. In addition, live donor liver transplantation requires a thorough presurgical assessment of the donor liver to minimize the risk of postoperative complications. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Recently, cross-sectional imaging assessment of diffuse liver diseases has gained momentum due to its ability to provide both anatomical and functional assessments of normal and abnormal tissues. Various imaging techniques are being employed to assess diffuse liver diseases including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and ultrasound (US). MRI has the ability to detect abnormal intracellular and molecular processes and tissue architecture. CT has a high spatial resolution, while US provides real-time imaging, is inexpensive, and readily available. We herein review current state-of-the-art techniques to assess the underlying non-tumorous liver. Specifically, we summarize current approaches to evaluating diffuse liver diseases including fatty liver alcoholic or non-alcoholic (NAFLD, AFLD), hepatic fibrosis (HF), and iron deposition (ID) with a focus on advanced imaging techniques for non-invasive assessment along with their implications for patient management. In addition, the role of and techniques to assess hepatic volume in hepatic surgery are discussed.
Authors: G Tsoulfas; I Goulis; D Giakoustidis; E Akriviadis; P Agorastou; G Imvrios; V Papanikolaou Journal: Hippokratia Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 0.471
Authors: Harald Kramer; Perry J Pickhardt; Mark A Kliewer; Diego Hernando; Guang-Hong Chen; James A Zagzebski; Scott B Reeder Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: I S Goldman; M L Winkler; S E Raper; M E Barker; E Keung; H I Goldberg; T D Boyer Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1985-03 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Winston Dunn; Gregory J Norman; Perrie E Pardee; Michael S Middleton; Nanda Kerkar; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 22.682