Kazu Shibutani1, Masahiro Okada2, Jitsuro Tsukada1, Kenji Ibukuro1, Hayato Abe3, Naoki Matsumoto4, Yutaka Midorikawa3, Mitsuhiko Moriyama4, Tadatoshi Takayama3. 1. Department of Radiology, Nihon University School of Medicine, 30-1, Oyaguchikami-machi, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, 173-8610, Japan. 2. Department of Radiology, Nihon University School of Medicine, 30-1, Oyaguchikami-machi, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, 173-8610, Japan. okada.masahiro@nihon-u.ac.jp. 3. Department of Digestive Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the predictive value of computed tomography volumetry (CTV), magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) of the liver, and their combination for major complications after liver resection. METHODS: We enrolled 108 consecutive patients who underwent anatomical liver resection for liver tumors and preoperative contrast-enhanced CT and MRE. The future liver remnant (FLR) ratio was calculated by CTV, while the liver stiffness measurement (LSM) was obtained by MRE. FLR ratio alone, LSM alone, and combined FLR ratio and LSM were evaluated to predict major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa). Univariate and multivariate analyses of hepatic biochemical parameters and imaging data were performed to identify predictors of major complications. Receiver operating characteristic analyses of FLR ratio, LSM, and their combination were performed, and the sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-two (20.4%) of the 108 patients experienced major complications. According to multiple regression analysis, the FLR ratio (odds ratio [OR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-0.99, p = 0.040) and LSM (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.01-2.94, p = 0.047) were independent predictors of major complications. The combined FLR ratio and LSM were predictive of major complications, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.818, sensitivity of 68.2%, and specificity of 84.9%. The AUC and specificity for combined FLR ratio and LSM were larger than those for FLR ratio (AUC: 0.711, specificity: 80.2%) and LSM (AUC: 0.793, specificity: 80.2%). CONCLUSION: Combined CTV and MRE analysis can improve the AUC and specificity for predicting major complications after anatomical liver resection.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the predictive value of computed tomography volumetry (CTV), magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) of the liver, and their combination for major complications after liver resection. METHODS: We enrolled 108 consecutive patients who underwent anatomical liver resection for liver tumors and preoperative contrast-enhanced CT and MRE. The future liver remnant (FLR) ratio was calculated by CTV, while the liver stiffness measurement (LSM) was obtained by MRE. FLR ratio alone, LSM alone, and combined FLR ratio and LSM were evaluated to predict major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa). Univariate and multivariate analyses of hepatic biochemical parameters and imaging data were performed to identify predictors of major complications. Receiver operating characteristic analyses of FLR ratio, LSM, and their combination were performed, and the sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-two (20.4%) of the 108 patients experienced major complications. According to multiple regression analysis, the FLR ratio (odds ratio [OR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-0.99, p = 0.040) and LSM (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.01-2.94, p = 0.047) were independent predictors of major complications. The combined FLR ratio and LSM were predictive of major complications, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.818, sensitivity of 68.2%, and specificity of 84.9%. The AUC and specificity for combined FLR ratio and LSM were larger than those for FLR ratio (AUC: 0.711, specificity: 80.2%) and LSM (AUC: 0.793, specificity: 80.2%). CONCLUSION: Combined CTV and MRE analysis can improve the AUC and specificity for predicting major complications after anatomical liver resection.
Authors: G Gozzetti; A Mazziotti; A Cavallari; R Bellusci; L Bolondi; W Grigioni; R Bragaglia; G L Grazi; E De Raffele Journal: Surg Gynecol Obstet Date: 1988-06