Cargando…

Reliability and accuracy of straightforward measurements for liver volume determination in ultrasound and computed tomography compared to real volumetry

To evaluate the suitability of volume index measurement (VI) by either ultrasound (US) or computed tomography (CT) for the assessment of liver volume. Fifty-nine patients, 21 women, with a mean age of 66.8 ± 12.6 years underwent US of the liver followed immediately by abdominal CT. In US and CT imag...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Seppelt, D., Kromrey, M. L., Ittermann, T., Kolb, C., Haubold, A., Kampfrath, N., Fedders, D., Heiss, P., Hoberück, S., Hoffmann, R. T., Kühn, J. P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9304384/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35864140
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16736-9
_version_ 1784752091429863424
author Seppelt, D.
Kromrey, M. L.
Ittermann, T.
Kolb, C.
Haubold, A.
Kampfrath, N.
Fedders, D.
Heiss, P.
Hoberück, S.
Hoffmann, R. T.
Kühn, J. P.
author_facet Seppelt, D.
Kromrey, M. L.
Ittermann, T.
Kolb, C.
Haubold, A.
Kampfrath, N.
Fedders, D.
Heiss, P.
Hoberück, S.
Hoffmann, R. T.
Kühn, J. P.
author_sort Seppelt, D.
collection PubMed
description To evaluate the suitability of volume index measurement (VI) by either ultrasound (US) or computed tomography (CT) for the assessment of liver volume. Fifty-nine patients, 21 women, with a mean age of 66.8 ± 12.6 years underwent US of the liver followed immediately by abdominal CT. In US and CT imaging dorsoventral, mediolateral and craniocaudal liver diameters in their maximum extensions were assessed by two observers. VI was calculated by multiplication of the diameters divided by a constant (3.6). The liver volume determined by a manual segmentation in CT (“true liver volume”) served as gold standard. True liver volume and calculated VI determined by US and CT were compared using Bland–Altman analysis. Mean differences of VI between observers were − 34.7% (− 90.1%; 20.7%) for the US-based and 1.1% (− 16.1%; 18.2%) for the CT-based technique, respectively. Liver volumes determined by semi-automated segmentation, US-based VI and CT-based VI, were as follows: 1.500 ± 347cm(3); 863 ± 371cm(3); 1.509 ± 432cm(3). Results showed a great discrepancy between US-based VI and true liver volume with a mean bias of 58.3 ± 66.9%, and high agreement between CT-based VI and true liver volume with a low mean difference of 4.4 ± 28.3%. Volume index based on CT diameters is a reliable, fast and simple approach for estimating liver volume and can therefore be recommended for clinical practice. The usage of US-based volume index for assessment of liver volume should not be used due to its low accuracy of US in measurement of liver diameters.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9304384
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93043842022-07-23 Reliability and accuracy of straightforward measurements for liver volume determination in ultrasound and computed tomography compared to real volumetry Seppelt, D. Kromrey, M. L. Ittermann, T. Kolb, C. Haubold, A. Kampfrath, N. Fedders, D. Heiss, P. Hoberück, S. Hoffmann, R. T. Kühn, J. P. Sci Rep Article To evaluate the suitability of volume index measurement (VI) by either ultrasound (US) or computed tomography (CT) for the assessment of liver volume. Fifty-nine patients, 21 women, with a mean age of 66.8 ± 12.6 years underwent US of the liver followed immediately by abdominal CT. In US and CT imaging dorsoventral, mediolateral and craniocaudal liver diameters in their maximum extensions were assessed by two observers. VI was calculated by multiplication of the diameters divided by a constant (3.6). The liver volume determined by a manual segmentation in CT (“true liver volume”) served as gold standard. True liver volume and calculated VI determined by US and CT were compared using Bland–Altman analysis. Mean differences of VI between observers were − 34.7% (− 90.1%; 20.7%) for the US-based and 1.1% (− 16.1%; 18.2%) for the CT-based technique, respectively. Liver volumes determined by semi-automated segmentation, US-based VI and CT-based VI, were as follows: 1.500 ± 347cm(3); 863 ± 371cm(3); 1.509 ± 432cm(3). Results showed a great discrepancy between US-based VI and true liver volume with a mean bias of 58.3 ± 66.9%, and high agreement between CT-based VI and true liver volume with a low mean difference of 4.4 ± 28.3%. Volume index based on CT diameters is a reliable, fast and simple approach for estimating liver volume and can therefore be recommended for clinical practice. The usage of US-based volume index for assessment of liver volume should not be used due to its low accuracy of US in measurement of liver diameters. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-07-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9304384/ /pubmed/35864140 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16736-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This 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 Article
Seppelt, D.
Kromrey, M. L.
Ittermann, T.
Kolb, C.
Haubold, A.
Kampfrath, N.
Fedders, D.
Heiss, P.
Hoberück, S.
Hoffmann, R. T.
Kühn, J. P.
Reliability and accuracy of straightforward measurements for liver volume determination in ultrasound and computed tomography compared to real volumetry
title Reliability and accuracy of straightforward measurements for liver volume determination in ultrasound and computed tomography compared to real volumetry
title_full Reliability and accuracy of straightforward measurements for liver volume determination in ultrasound and computed tomography compared to real volumetry
title_fullStr Reliability and accuracy of straightforward measurements for liver volume determination in ultrasound and computed tomography compared to real volumetry
title_full_unstemmed Reliability and accuracy of straightforward measurements for liver volume determination in ultrasound and computed tomography compared to real volumetry
title_short Reliability and accuracy of straightforward measurements for liver volume determination in ultrasound and computed tomography compared to real volumetry
title_sort reliability and accuracy of straightforward measurements for liver volume determination in ultrasound and computed tomography compared to real volumetry
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9304384/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35864140
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16736-9
work_keys_str_mv AT seppeltd reliabilityandaccuracyofstraightforwardmeasurementsforlivervolumedeterminationinultrasoundandcomputedtomographycomparedtorealvolumetry
AT kromreyml reliabilityandaccuracyofstraightforwardmeasurementsforlivervolumedeterminationinultrasoundandcomputedtomographycomparedtorealvolumetry
AT ittermannt reliabilityandaccuracyofstraightforwardmeasurementsforlivervolumedeterminationinultrasoundandcomputedtomographycomparedtorealvolumetry
AT kolbc reliabilityandaccuracyofstraightforwardmeasurementsforlivervolumedeterminationinultrasoundandcomputedtomographycomparedtorealvolumetry
AT haubolda reliabilityandaccuracyofstraightforwardmeasurementsforlivervolumedeterminationinultrasoundandcomputedtomographycomparedtorealvolumetry
AT kampfrathn reliabilityandaccuracyofstraightforwardmeasurementsforlivervolumedeterminationinultrasoundandcomputedtomographycomparedtorealvolumetry
AT feddersd reliabilityandaccuracyofstraightforwardmeasurementsforlivervolumedeterminationinultrasoundandcomputedtomographycomparedtorealvolumetry
AT heissp reliabilityandaccuracyofstraightforwardmeasurementsforlivervolumedeterminationinultrasoundandcomputedtomographycomparedtorealvolumetry
AT hoberucks reliabilityandaccuracyofstraightforwardmeasurementsforlivervolumedeterminationinultrasoundandcomputedtomographycomparedtorealvolumetry
AT hoffmannrt reliabilityandaccuracyofstraightforwardmeasurementsforlivervolumedeterminationinultrasoundandcomputedtomographycomparedtorealvolumetry
AT kuhnjp reliabilityandaccuracyofstraightforwardmeasurementsforlivervolumedeterminationinultrasoundandcomputedtomographycomparedtorealvolumetry