Cargando…
CT volume analysis in living donor liver transplantation: accuracy of three different approaches
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective study is to compare and evaluate accuracy of three different approaches of liver volume quantification in living donor transplantations. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective study of 60 donors. The total and right lobe liver volumes were analyzed...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Vienna
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10185718/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37184628 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01431-8 |
_version_ | 1785042415913009152 |
---|---|
author | Kalshabay, Yerkezhan Zholdybay, Zhamilya Di Martino, Michele Medeubekov, Ulykbek Baiguissova, Dinara Ainakulova, Akmaral Doskhanov, Maksat Baimakhanov, Bolatbek |
author_facet | Kalshabay, Yerkezhan Zholdybay, Zhamilya Di Martino, Michele Medeubekov, Ulykbek Baiguissova, Dinara Ainakulova, Akmaral Doskhanov, Maksat Baimakhanov, Bolatbek |
author_sort | Kalshabay, Yerkezhan |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective study is to compare and evaluate accuracy of three different approaches of liver volume quantification in living donor transplantations. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective study of 60 donors. The total and right lobe liver volumes were analyzed in the portal-venous phase by two independent radiologists who estimated the volumes using manual, semi-automated and automated segmentation methods. The measured right lobe liver volume was compared to the real weight of the graft after back-table examinations. RESULTS: The mean estimated overall liver volume was 1164.4 ± 137.0 mL for manual, 1277.4 ± 190.4 mL for semi-automated and 1240.1 ± 108.5 mL for automated segmentation. The mean estimated right lobe volume was 762.0 ± 122.4 mL for manual, 792.9 ± 139.9 mL for semi-automated and 765.4 ± 132.7 mL for automated segmentation. The mean graft weight was 711.2 ± 142.9 g. The manual method better correlated with the graft weight (r = 0.730) in comparison with the semi-automated (r = 0.685) and the automated (r = 0.699) methods (p < 0.001). The mean error ratio in volume estimation by each application was 12.7 ± 16.6% for manual, 17.1 ± 17.3% for semi-automated, 14.7 ± 16.8% for automated methods. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean error ratio of the manual and the semi-automated segmentations (p = 0.017), and no statistically significant difference between the manual and the automated applications (p = 0.199). CONCLUSION: Volume analysis application better correlates with graft weight, but there is no obvious difference between correlation coefficients of all three methods. All three modalities had an error ratio, of which the semi-automated method showed the highest value. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Volume analysis application was more accurate, but there is no drastic difference between correlation coefficients of all three methods. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10185718 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer Vienna |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101857182023-05-17 CT volume analysis in living donor liver transplantation: accuracy of three different approaches Kalshabay, Yerkezhan Zholdybay, Zhamilya Di Martino, Michele Medeubekov, Ulykbek Baiguissova, Dinara Ainakulova, Akmaral Doskhanov, Maksat Baimakhanov, Bolatbek Insights Imaging Original Article OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective study is to compare and evaluate accuracy of three different approaches of liver volume quantification in living donor transplantations. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective study of 60 donors. The total and right lobe liver volumes were analyzed in the portal-venous phase by two independent radiologists who estimated the volumes using manual, semi-automated and automated segmentation methods. The measured right lobe liver volume was compared to the real weight of the graft after back-table examinations. RESULTS: The mean estimated overall liver volume was 1164.4 ± 137.0 mL for manual, 1277.4 ± 190.4 mL for semi-automated and 1240.1 ± 108.5 mL for automated segmentation. The mean estimated right lobe volume was 762.0 ± 122.4 mL for manual, 792.9 ± 139.9 mL for semi-automated and 765.4 ± 132.7 mL for automated segmentation. The mean graft weight was 711.2 ± 142.9 g. The manual method better correlated with the graft weight (r = 0.730) in comparison with the semi-automated (r = 0.685) and the automated (r = 0.699) methods (p < 0.001). The mean error ratio in volume estimation by each application was 12.7 ± 16.6% for manual, 17.1 ± 17.3% for semi-automated, 14.7 ± 16.8% for automated methods. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean error ratio of the manual and the semi-automated segmentations (p = 0.017), and no statistically significant difference between the manual and the automated applications (p = 0.199). CONCLUSION: Volume analysis application better correlates with graft weight, but there is no obvious difference between correlation coefficients of all three methods. All three modalities had an error ratio, of which the semi-automated method showed the highest value. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Volume analysis application was more accurate, but there is no drastic difference between correlation coefficients of all three methods. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] Springer Vienna 2023-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10185718/ /pubmed/37184628 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01431-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Kalshabay, Yerkezhan Zholdybay, Zhamilya Di Martino, Michele Medeubekov, Ulykbek Baiguissova, Dinara Ainakulova, Akmaral Doskhanov, Maksat Baimakhanov, Bolatbek CT volume analysis in living donor liver transplantation: accuracy of three different approaches |
title | CT volume analysis in living donor liver transplantation: accuracy of three different approaches |
title_full | CT volume analysis in living donor liver transplantation: accuracy of three different approaches |
title_fullStr | CT volume analysis in living donor liver transplantation: accuracy of three different approaches |
title_full_unstemmed | CT volume analysis in living donor liver transplantation: accuracy of three different approaches |
title_short | CT volume analysis in living donor liver transplantation: accuracy of three different approaches |
title_sort | ct volume analysis in living donor liver transplantation: accuracy of three different approaches |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10185718/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37184628 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01431-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kalshabayyerkezhan ctvolumeanalysisinlivingdonorlivertransplantationaccuracyofthreedifferentapproaches AT zholdybayzhamilya ctvolumeanalysisinlivingdonorlivertransplantationaccuracyofthreedifferentapproaches AT dimartinomichele ctvolumeanalysisinlivingdonorlivertransplantationaccuracyofthreedifferentapproaches AT medeubekovulykbek ctvolumeanalysisinlivingdonorlivertransplantationaccuracyofthreedifferentapproaches AT baiguissovadinara ctvolumeanalysisinlivingdonorlivertransplantationaccuracyofthreedifferentapproaches AT ainakulovaakmaral ctvolumeanalysisinlivingdonorlivertransplantationaccuracyofthreedifferentapproaches AT doskhanovmaksat ctvolumeanalysisinlivingdonorlivertransplantationaccuracyofthreedifferentapproaches AT baimakhanovbolatbek ctvolumeanalysisinlivingdonorlivertransplantationaccuracyofthreedifferentapproaches |