Preoperative Helical Computerized Tomography Estimation of Donor Liver Volume

Örgüç, Şebnem; Ünal, Aydın; Ünalp, Ömer Vedat; Kırdök, Onur; Gurgan, U.; Kazımi, Mircelal; Özsoy, Mustafa; Kilic, Murat; Zeytunlu, Murat

doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2006.08.106

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In an effort to better evaluate the GV preoperatively, Salvalaggio et al10 reported formula‐derived GV estimates, and Gondolesi et al3 used the fixed value of 57% for right lobe prediction. Although these formulas that are based on fixed calculated percentages of the right lobe GV have acceptable correlation coefficients and lower error ratios in comparison with radiological volume estimation, they have not addressed the issue of variations in the percentage of the right lobe with respect to the whole liver,32 with the mean right lobe GV ranging from 56% to 65% 3, 8, 10, 32, 33. We examined the utility of RPVD and LPVD values in providing an easier method of estimating the right lobe GV percentage to overcome its marked variations in the population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preoperative estimation of the liver graft weight in adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation using maximal portal vein diameters

Wang¹,

Pan

Chu

et al. 2011

Liver Transpl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An accurate preoperative estimate of the graft weight is vital to avoid small-for-size syndrome in the recipient and ensure donor safety after adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Here we describe a simple method for estimating the graft volume (GV) that uses the maximal right portal vein diameter (RPVD) and the maximal left portal vein diameter (LPVD). Between June 2004 and December 2009, 175 consecutive donors undergoing right hepatectomy for LDLT were retrospectively reviewed. The GV was determined with 3 estimation methods: (1) the radiological graft volume (RGV) estimated by computed tomography (CT) volumetry; (2) the computed tomography-calculated graft volume (CGV-CT), which was obtained by the multiplication of the standard liver volume (SLV) by the RGV percentage with respect to the total liver volume derived from CT; and (3) the portal vein diameter ratio-calculated graft volume (CGV-PVDR), which was obtained by the multiplication of the SLV by the portal vein diameter ratio [PVDR; ie, PVDR ¼ RPVD 2 /(RPVD 2 þ LPVD 2 )]. These values were compared to the actual graft weight (AGW), which was measured intraoperatively. The mean AGW was 633.63 6 107.51 g, whereas the mean RGV, CGV-CT, and CGV-PVDR values were 747.83 6 138.59, 698.21 6 94.81, and 685.20 6 90.88 cm 3 , respectively. All 3 estimation methods tended to overestimate the AGW (P < 0.001). The actual graft-to-recipient body weight ratio (GRWR) was 1.00% 6 0.19%, and the GRWRs calculated on the basis of the RGV, CGV-CT, and CGV-PVDR values were 1.19% 6 0.25%, 1.11% 6 0.22%, and 1.09% 6 0.21%, respectively. Overall, the CGV-PVDR values better correlated with the AGW and GRWR values according to Lin's concordance correlation coefficient and the Landis and Kock benchmark. In conclusion, the PVDR method is a simple estimation method that accurately predicts GVs and GRWRs in adult LDLT.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preoperative estimation of the liver graft weight in adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation using maximal portal vein diameters

Wang¹,

Pan

Chu

et al. 2011

Liver Transpl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are recognized and reliable methods for measuring liver volume [11][12][13]. Studies have shown that CT scans can reliably measure liver volume and can verify the vascular anatomy [14][15][16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%