9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Semi-automated computed tomography Volumetry can predict hemihepatectomy specimens’ volumes in patients with hepatic malignancy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          One of the major causes of perioperative mortality of patients undergoing major hepatic resections is post-hepatectomy liver failure ( PHLF). For preoperative appraisal of the risk of PHLF it is important to accurately predict resectate volume and future liver remnant volume (FLRV). The objective of our study is to prospectively evaluate the accuracy of hemihepatectomy resectate volumes that are determined by computed tomography volumetry ( CTV) when compared with intraoperatively measured volumes and weights as gold standard in patients undergoing hemihepatectomy.

          Methods

          Twenty four patients (13 women, 11 men) scheduled for hemihepatectomy due to histologically proven primary or secondary hepatic malignancies were included in our study. CTV was performed using a semi-automated module ( S, hereinafter) (syngo.CT Liver Analysis VA30, Siemens Healthcare, Germany). Conversion factors between CT volumes on the one side and intraoperative volumes and weights on the other side were calculated using the method of least squares. Absolute and relative disagreements between CT volumes and intraoperative volumes were determined.

          Results

          A conversion factor of c = 0.906 most precisely predicted intraoperative volumes of exsanguinated hemihepatectomy specimens from CT volumes in all patients with mean absolute and relative disagreements between CT volumes and intraoperative volumes of 57 ml and 6.3%. The use of operation-specific conversion factors yielded even better results.

          Conclusions

          CTV performed with S accurately predicts intraoperative volumes of hemihepatectomy specimens when applying conversion factors which compensate for exsanguination. This allows to precisely estimate the FLRV and thus minimize the risk of PHLF in patients undergoing major hepatic resections.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          How Much Remnant Is Enough in Liver Resection?

          Background: Liver resection represents the first choice of treatment for primary and secondary liver malignancies, offering the patient the best chance of long-term survival. The extensive use of major hepatectomy increases the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), which is associated with a high frequency of postoperative complications, mortality and increased length of hospital stay. Aims: The aim of this review is to investigate the different risk factors related to the occurrence of PHLF and to identify the limits for a safe liver resection in patients with normal liver and injured liver (cirrhosis, cholestasis, steatosis and post-chemotherapy liver injury). Methods: A literature search was undertaken in PubMed and related search engines, looking for articles relating to hepatic failure following hepatectomy in normal liver or injured liver. Results: In spite of improvements in surgical and postoperative management, the parameters determining how much liver can be resected are still largely undefined. A number of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors all contribute to the likelihood of liver failure after surgery. The safe limits for liver resection can be estimated from the data of the literature for patients with normal liver and for those with different types of liver injury. Conclusions: Preoperative assessment that includes evaluation of liver volume and function of the remnant liver is a mandatory prerequisite before major hepatectomy. The critical residual liver volume for patients able to predict PHLF is mainly related to the presence of pre-existing liver disease and liver function. Among patients with normal liver, the limit for safe resection ranges from 20 to 30% future remnant liver of total liver volume. In patients with injured liver (cirrhosis, cholestasis or steatosis), preoperative assessment of the risk of PHLF should include future remnant liver volumetry and accurate liver function evaluation, including different dynamic liver function tests.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Volumetric analysis predicts hepatic dysfunction in patients undergoing major liver resection.

            Liver-enhancing modalities, such as portal vein embolization, are increasingly employed prior to major liver resection to prevent postoperative liver dysfunction. Selection criteria for such techniques are not well described. This study uses CT-based volumetric analysis as a tool to identify patients at highest risk for postoperative hepatic dysfunction. Between July 1999 and December 2000, a total of 126 consecutive patients who were undergoing liver resection for colorectal metastasis and had CT scans at our institution were included in the analysis. Volume of resection was determined by semiautomated contouring of the liver on preoperative volumetrically (helical) acquired CT scans. Hepatic dysfunction was defined as prothrombin time greater than 18 seconds or serum bilirubin level greater than 3 mg/dl. Marginal regression was used to compare the predictive ability of volumetric analysis and the extent of resection. The percentage of liver remaining was closely correlated with increasing prothrombin time and bilirubin level (P < 0.001). After trisegmentectomy, 90% of patients with
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Automated hepatic volumetry for living related liver transplantation at multisection CT.

              To prospectively compare in vivo hepatic automated volumetry with manual volumetry and measured liver volume. The study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Institutional Review Board of Kumamoto University (Japan). Patient informed consent was obtained. Preoperative multisection computed tomography (CT) was performed in 35 consecutive patients (21 men, 14 women; mean age, 42.8 years; range, 28-72 years) with hepatic disease awaiting living related liver transplantation. The CT scans covered the entire liver at a section thickness of 2.5 mm. Liver volume was estimated by using both the automated and the manual methods. Actual liver weight was obtained for all patients and was converted to hepatic volume on the basis of a predetermined relationship between actual liver weight and volume. Processing time required for both methods was also recorded. Two-tailed paired t test, correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman tests were used for statistical analyses. Mean liver weight was 881.7 g +/- 249.8 (standard deviation), and mean measured liver volume was 956.00 cm(3) +/- 280.10. Volumetry performed with the automated and manual methods provided liver volumes of 982.99 cm(3) +/- 301.98 and 937.10 cm(3) +/- 301.31, respectively. There was good correlation between measured and estimated volumes obtained with the automated method (r = 0.792, P < .01). The manual and automated methods required 32.8 minutes +/- 6.9 and 4.4 minutes +/- 1.9, respectively. The automated method reduced the time required for volumetry of the liver and provided acceptable measurements. (c) RSNA, 2006.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                004962215637345 , philipp.mayer@med.uni-heidelberg.de
                martin.groezinger@gmx.de
                theresa.mokry@med.uni-heidelberg.de
                peter.schemmer@medunigraz.at
                nina.waldburger@web.de
                hans-ulrich.kauczor@med.uni-heidelberg.de
                miriam.klauss@med.uni-heidelberg.de
                christof.sommer@med.uni-heidelberg.de
                Journal
                BMC Med Imaging
                BMC Med Imaging
                BMC Medical Imaging
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2342
                26 February 2019
                26 February 2019
                2019
                : 19
                : 20
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0328 4908, GRID grid.5253.1, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, , University Hospital Heidelberg, ; Heidelberg, Germany
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0328 4908, GRID grid.5253.1, Department of General and Transplant Surgery, , University Hospital Heidelberg, ; Heidelberg, Germany
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8988 2476, GRID grid.11598.34, Division of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, , Medical University of Graz, ; Graz, Austria
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0328 4908, GRID grid.5253.1, Institute of Pathology, , University Hospital Heidelberg, ; Heidelberg, Germany
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1957-1594
                Article
                309
                10.1186/s12880-019-0309-5
                6390596
                30808320
                cd05d59d-e9e4-4905-ace6-7a1114c81d17
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 13 September 2017
                : 10 January 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004830, Siemens;
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Radiology & Imaging
                computed tomography volumetry,hemihepatectomy,hepatic malignancy
                Radiology & Imaging
                computed tomography volumetry, hemihepatectomy, hepatic malignancy

                Comments

                Comment on this article