Estimation of Standard Liver Volume in Chinese Adult Living Donors

Liang, Fanrong; Yan, Lü-Nan; Bo, Lin; Yong, Zheng; Wu, Tianfu; Xu, Mingqing; Wang, Wentao; Zheyu, C.

doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2009.08.079

Cited by 47 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, we have found that the formula by Fu Gui et al and A. Poovathumkadavil et al are closest in estimation of standard liver volume in South East Asian adults [7,10]. However, the accuracy of estimation is limited likely due to the different body habitus of donors in the studied populations compared with our population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 44%

“…None of the seven formulae were accurate at predicting volume but all seven formulas showed very similar correlation (r = 0.53-0.55). However, the estimated liver volumes using formulas by FuGui et al and A. Poovathumkavadil et al showed the same and closest correlation with CT predicted volumes (r 2 = 0.55; Figure 1) [7,10]. The estimated liver volume using formula by Chan et al showed the next closest correlation with r 2 of 0.54.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Currently, CT volumetry remains the most accurate manner to predict volume. Failing this facility, the formula by Fu Gui and A. Poovathumkadavil et al [7,10] show best accuracy in this population. Finally, using volumetry, the predicted graft weight is calculated by a novel formula described here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…This implies that body weight may be a more important factor in predicting liver volume in this population. In fact, four of twelve reported studies showed that BW is more significant than BSA [6,7,9,18]. Body weight is preferred as a primary index, and is obtained by precise weighing measurement as opposed to BSA, which is a secondary index estimated using few possible formulas.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Differences in population have implication on BMI and therefore calculated liver volume and further differences in the prevelance of steatosis. This has resulted in numerous formulae that are derived by different centres that are population specific [4,[5][6][7][8][9][10]. Accurate estimation is crucial to avert graft size mismatch or posthepatectomy liver failure, hence the importance to determine the most suitable formula for a patient group.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Standard Formulae in Predicting Liver Volumes: A South East Asian Series of Adult Living Donors

SA¹,

GK²

2015

J Transplant Technol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 44%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Standard Formulae in Predicting Liver Volumes: A South East Asian Series of Adult Living Donors

SA¹,

GK²

2015

J Transplant Technol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Variability of standard liver volume estimation versus software-assisted total liver volume measurement

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The estimation of the standard liver volume (SLV) is an important component of the evaluation of potential living liver donors and the surgical planning for resection for tumors. At least 16 different formulas for estimating SLV have been published in the worldwide literature. More recently, several proprietary software-assisted image postprocessing (SAIP) programs have been developed to provide accurate volume measurements based on the actual anatomy of a specific patient. Using SAIP, we measured SLV in 375 healthy potential liver donors and compared the results to SLV values that were estimated with the previously published formulas and each donor's demographic and anthropomorphic data. The percentage errors of the 16 SLV formulas versus SAIP varied by more than 59% (from À21.6% to þ37.7%). One formula was not statistically different from SAIP with respect to the percentage error (À1.2%), and another formula was not statistically different with respect to the absolute liver volume (18 mL). More than 75% of the estimated SLV values produced by these 2 formulas had percentage errors within 615%, and the formulas provided good predictions within acceptable agreement (615%) on scatter plots. Because of the wide variability, care must be taken when a formula is being chosen for estimating SLV, but the 2 aforementioned formulas provided the most accurate results with our patient demographics.

show abstract

A new formula for estimation of standard liver volume using computed tomography–measured body thickness

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this article is to derive a more accurate and easy-to-use formula for finding estimated standard liver volume (ESLV) using novel computed tomography (CT) measurement parameters. New formulas for ESLV have been emerging that aim to improve the accuracy of estimation. However, many of these formulas contain body surface area measurements and logarithms in the equations that lead to a more complicated calculation. In addition, substantial errors in ESLV using these old formulas have been shown. An improved version of the formula for ESLV is needed. This is a retrospective cohort of consecutive living donor liver transplantations from 2005 to 2016. Donors were randomly assigned to either the formula derivation or validation groups. Total liver volume (TLV) measured by CT was used as the reference for a linear regression analysis against various patient factors. The derived formula was compared with the existing formulas. There were 722 patients (197 from the derivation group, 164 from the validation group, and 361 from the recipient group) involved in the study. The donor's body weight (odds ratio [OR], 10.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.25-13.60; P < 0.01) and body thickness (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 0.36-3.65; P = 0.02) were found to be independent factors for the TLV calculation. A formula for TLV (cm ) was derived: 2 × thickness (mm) + 10 × weight (kg) + 190 with R 0.48, which was the highest when compared with the 4 other most often cited formulas. This formula remained superior to other published formulas in the validation set analysis (R , 5.37; interclass correlation coefficient, 0.74). Graft weight/ESLV values calculated by the new formula were shown to have the highest correlation with delayed graft function (C-statistic, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90; P < 0.01). The new formula (2 × thickness + 10 × weight + 190) represents the first study proposing the use of CT-measured body thickness which is novel, easy to use, and the most accurate for ESLV. Liver Transplantation 23 1113-1122 2017 AASLD.

show abstract

Estimation of Standard Liver Volume in Chinese Adult Living Donors

Cited by 47 publications

References 26 publications

Standard Formulae in Predicting Liver Volumes: A South East Asian Series of Adult Living Donors

Standard Formulae in Predicting Liver Volumes: A South East Asian Series of Adult Living Donors

Variability of standard liver volume estimation versus software-assisted total liver volume measurement

A new formula for estimation of standard liver volume using computed tomography–measured body thickness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About