BACKGROUND: An accurate preoperative volumetric assessment of donor liver is essential for successful living donor liver transplant by ensuring adequate remnant and graft recipient weight ratio (GRWR). METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 744 right lobe (RL), 65 left lobe (LL) and 33 left lateral sector (LLS) grafts from July 2010 to January 2014. A semi-automated interactive commercial software called AW Volume share 6 was used for volumetry. Bland Altman plot was used for assessing the agreement between estimated graft weight (EGW) and actual graft weight (AGW). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between EGW and AGW for RL graft weight (722±134 vs. 717±126 gm; P=0.06). Although Bland Altman graph showed that 95% limits of agreement was more in LL (-164 to +110) than RL (-156 to +147) and LLS grafts (-137 to +239), CT scan significantly overestimated LL graft weight (EGW =460±118 gm vs. AGW =433±102 gm; P=0.003) and underestimated LLS graft weight (EGW =203±48 gm vs. AGW =254±49 gm; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CT volumetry overestimate LL graft and underestimate LLS graft weight. This should be factored in when selecting LL graft by taking higher GRWR.
BACKGROUND: An accurate preoperative volumetric assessment of donor liver is essential for successful living donor liver transplant by ensuring adequate remnant and graft recipient weight ratio (GRWR). METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 744 right lobe (RL), 65 left lobe (LL) and 33 left lateral sector (LLS) grafts from July 2010 to January 2014. A semi-automated interactive commercial software called AW Volume share 6 was used for volumetry. Bland Altman plot was used for assessing the agreement between estimated graft weight (EGW) and actual graft weight (AGW). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between EGW and AGW for RL graft weight (722±134 vs. 717±126 gm; P=0.06). Although Bland Altman graph showed that 95% limits of agreement was more in LL (-164 to +110) than RL (-156 to +147) and LLS grafts (-137 to +239), CT scan significantly overestimated LL graft weight (EGW =460±118 gm vs. AGW =433±102 gm; P=0.003) and underestimated LLS graft weight (EGW =203±48 gm vs. AGW =254±49 gm; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CT volumetry overestimate LL graft and underestimate LLS graft weight. This should be factored in when selecting LL graft by taking higher GRWR.
Entities:
Keywords:
CT volumetry; Liver; graft weight; living donor; transplantation
Authors: Arne-Jörn Lemke; Martin Julius Brinkmann; Thomas Schott; Stefan Markus Niehues; Utz Settmacher; Peter Neuhaus; Roland Felix Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-07-25 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Kenji Suzuki; Mark L Epstein; Ryan Kohlbrenner; Shailesh Garg; Masatoshi Hori; Aytekin Oto; Richard L Baron Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.959
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: A Radtke; G C Sotiropoulos; S Nadalin; E P Molmenti; T Schroeder; F H Saner; G Sgourakis; V R Cicinnati; C Valentin-Gamazo; C E Broelsch; M Malago; Hauke Lang Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2008-07-28 Impact factor: 2.175
Authors: Sven Koitka; Phillip Gudlin; Jens M Theysohn; Arzu Oezcelik; Dieter P Hoyer; Murat Dayangac; René Hosch; Johannes Haubold; Nils Flaschel; Felix Nensa; Eugen Malamutmann Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-10-01 Impact factor: 4.996