Pim B Olthof1, Ronald van Dam2, Elio Jovine3, Ricardo Robles Campos4, Eduardo de Santibañes5, Karl Oldhafer6, Massimo Malago7, Eddie K Abdalla8, Erik Schadde9. 1. Department of Surgery, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: p.b.olthof@amc.nl. 2. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands, and Universitätsklinikum Aachen, Aachen, Germany. 3. Department of Surgery, C. A. Pizzardi Maggiore Hospital, Bologna, Italy. 4. Department of Surgery, Virgen de la Arrixaca University Hospital, Murcia, Spain. 5. Department of Surgery, Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 6. Department of General, Visceral and Oncological Surgery, Asklepios Klinik Barmbek, Hamburg, Germany. 7. Department of HPB and Liver Transplant Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, University College London, London, UK. 8. Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Northside Hospital Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA. 9. Institute of Physiology, Center for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Future remnant liver volume is used to predict the risk for liver failure in patients who will undergo major liver resection. Formulas to estimate total liver volume based on biometric data are widely used to calculate future remnant liver volume; however, it remains unclear which formula is most accurate. This study evaluated published estimate total liver volume formulas to determine which formula best predicts the actual future remnant liver volume based on measurements in a large number of patients who underwent associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy surgery. METHODS: All patients with complete liver volume data in the associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy registry were included in this study. Estimate total liver volume and estimated future remnant liver volume were calculated for 16 published formulas. The median over- or underestimation compared with actual measured volumes were determined for estimate total liver volume and future remnant liver volume. The proportion of patients with an under- or overestimated future remnant liver volume for each formula were compared with each other using a 25% cut-off for each formula. RESULTS: Among 529 studied patients, the formulas ranged from a 19% underestimation to a 63% overestimation of estimate total liver volume. Estimation of future remnant liver volume lead to a 10% underestimation to a 5% overestimation among the formulas. Of all studied formulas, the Vauthey1 formula was the most accurate, generating underestimation of future remnant liver volume in 20% and overestimation of future remnant liver volume in 6% of patients. CONCLUSION: Validation of 16 published total liver volume formulas in a multicenter international cohort of 529 patients that underwent staged hepatectomy revealed that the Vauthey formula (estimate total liver volume = 18.51 × body weight + 191.8) provides the most accurate prediction of the actual future remnant liver volume.
BACKGROUND: Future remnant liver volume is used to predict the risk for liver failure in patients who will undergo major liver resection. Formulas to estimate total liver volume based on biometric data are widely used to calculate future remnant liver volume; however, it remains unclear which formula is most accurate. This study evaluated published estimate total liver volume formulas to determine which formula best predicts the actual future remnant liver volume based on measurements in a large number of patients who underwent associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy surgery. METHODS: All patients with complete liver volume data in the associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy registry were included in this study. Estimate total liver volume and estimated future remnant liver volume were calculated for 16 published formulas. The median over- or underestimation compared with actual measured volumes were determined for estimate total liver volume and future remnant liver volume. The proportion of patients with an under- or overestimated future remnant liver volume for each formula were compared with each other using a 25% cut-off for each formula. RESULTS: Among 529 studied patients, the formulas ranged from a 19% underestimation to a 63% overestimation of estimate total liver volume. Estimation of future remnant liver volume lead to a 10% underestimation to a 5% overestimation among the formulas. Of all studied formulas, the Vauthey1 formula was the most accurate, generating underestimation of future remnant liver volume in 20% and overestimation of future remnant liver volume in 6% of patients. CONCLUSION: Validation of 16 published total liver volume formulas in a multicenter international cohort of 529 patients that underwent staged hepatectomy revealed that the Vauthey formula (estimate total liver volume = 18.51 × body weight + 191.8) provides the most accurate prediction of the actual future remnant liver volume.
Authors: Ivan Capobianco; Karl J Oldhafer; Mohammed-Hossein Fard-Aghaie; Ricardo Robles-Campos; Roberto Brusadin; Henrik Petrowsky; Michael Linecker; Arianeb Mehrabi; Katrin Hoffmann; Jun Li; Asmus Heumann; Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro; Mauro Enrique Tun-Abraham; Elio Jovine; Matteo Serenari; Bergthor Bjornsson; Per Sandström; Ruslan Alikhanov; Mikhail Efanov; Paolo Muiesan; Andrea Schlegel; Thomas M van Gulik; Pim B Olthof; Gregor Alexander Stavrou; Lina Maria Serna-Higuita; Alfred Königsrainer; Silvio Nadalin Journal: Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 7.293
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: Damian J Mole; Jonathan A Fallowfield; Ahmed E Sherif; Timothy Kendall; Scott Semple; Matt Kelly; Gerard Ridgway; John J Connell; John McGonigle; Rajarshi Banerjee; J Michael Brady; Xiaozhong Zheng; Michael Hughes; Lucile Neyton; Joanne McClintock; Garry Tucker; Hilary Nailon; Dilip Patel; Anthony Wackett; Michelle Steven; Fenella Welsh; Myrddin Rees Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 3.240