Optimizing accuracy: a comparative analysis of preoperative liver volumetry in living donor liver transplantation from a surgeon's perspective - a retrospective cohort study.

IF 10.1 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
EunJin Choi, Seok-Hwan Kim
{"title":"Optimizing accuracy: a comparative analysis of preoperative liver volumetry in living donor liver transplantation from a surgeon's perspective - a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"EunJin Choi, Seok-Hwan Kim","doi":"10.1097/JS9.0000000000003112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate preoperative graft volume assessment is fundamental to the success of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Although manual and automated computed tomography (CT) volume measurement methods using various volumetric tools are widely used, their accuracy remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare various CT-based volumetric measurement methods for predicting actual graft weight (AGW) in LDLT and to identify specific dry weight correction factors for each method to improve clinical reliability.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study was performed on 109 patients who underwent LDLT between 2011 and 2024. Right liver volume was measured using automated (Philips Healthcare software), semi-automated (AnyVol software), and manual volumetry (PetaVision for clinics) methods. The optimal dry weight correction factor was calculated for each method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The optimal dry weight correction factors were 0.89 for the automated method, 0.82 for the semi-automated method, and 0.88 for the manual method. After applying these correction factors, the semi-automated method yielded the highest coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.687, standard error = 91.939). The error ratio decreased significantly: from 11.30 ± 14.59% to -0.93 ± 12.98% for the automated method, from 20.51 ± 15.65% to -1.18 ± 12.83% for the semi-automated method, and from 11.89 ± 14.67% to -1.53 ± 12.91% for the manual method.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Accurate prediction of AGW depends on applying optimal correction factors specific to each measurement method. All three methods showed high accuracy with the semi-automated method demonstrating the highest R2 and lowest SE, while the automated method exhibited the lowest error ratio. These findings support the use of cost-effective, software-based volumetry with tailored correction factors to improve donor safety and graft outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":14401,"journal":{"name":"International journal of surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000003112","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Accurate preoperative graft volume assessment is fundamental to the success of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Although manual and automated computed tomography (CT) volume measurement methods using various volumetric tools are widely used, their accuracy remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare various CT-based volumetric measurement methods for predicting actual graft weight (AGW) in LDLT and to identify specific dry weight correction factors for each method to improve clinical reliability.

Materials and methods: A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study was performed on 109 patients who underwent LDLT between 2011 and 2024. Right liver volume was measured using automated (Philips Healthcare software), semi-automated (AnyVol software), and manual volumetry (PetaVision for clinics) methods. The optimal dry weight correction factor was calculated for each method.

Results: The optimal dry weight correction factors were 0.89 for the automated method, 0.82 for the semi-automated method, and 0.88 for the manual method. After applying these correction factors, the semi-automated method yielded the highest coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.687, standard error = 91.939). The error ratio decreased significantly: from 11.30 ± 14.59% to -0.93 ± 12.98% for the automated method, from 20.51 ± 15.65% to -1.18 ± 12.83% for the semi-automated method, and from 11.89 ± 14.67% to -1.53 ± 12.91% for the manual method.

Conclusions: Accurate prediction of AGW depends on applying optimal correction factors specific to each measurement method. All three methods showed high accuracy with the semi-automated method demonstrating the highest R2 and lowest SE, while the automated method exhibited the lowest error ratio. These findings support the use of cost-effective, software-based volumetry with tailored correction factors to improve donor safety and graft outcomes.

优化准确性:从外科医生的角度对活体肝移植术前肝容量测量的比较分析-一项回顾性队列研究。
背景:准确的术前移植物体积评估是活体肝移植(LDLT)成功的基础。尽管使用各种体积工具的手动和自动计算机断层扫描(CT)体积测量方法被广泛使用,但其准确性仍然不确定。本研究旨在比较各种基于ct的体积测量方法用于预测LDLT的实际移植物重量(AGW),并确定每种方法的特定干重校正因子,以提高临床可靠性。材料和方法:对2011年至2024年间接受LDLT治疗的109例患者进行回顾性诊断准确性研究。使用自动(Philips Healthcare软件)、半自动(AnyVol软件)和手动体积测定(PetaVision用于诊所)方法测量右肝体积。计算了每种方法的最优干重修正系数。结果:全自动法、半自动化法和手工法的最佳干重校正系数分别为0.89、0.82和0.88。应用这些校正因子后,半自动化方法的确定系数最高(R2 = 0.687,标准误差= 91.939)。自动化方法的误差率从11.30±14.59%降至-0.93±12.98%,半自动化方法的误差率从20.51±15.65%降至-1.18±12.83%,手工方法的误差率从11.89±14.67%降至-1.53±12.91%。结论:准确预测AGW取决于采用针对每种测量方法的最佳校正因子。3种方法均具有较高的准确度,其中半自动化方法的R2最高,SE最低,而自动化方法的误差率最低。这些发现支持使用具有成本效益的、基于软件的容积法和定制的校正因子来提高供体安全性和移植结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Surgery (IJS) has a broad scope, encompassing all surgical specialties. Its primary objective is to facilitate the exchange of crucial ideas and lines of thought between and across these specialties.By doing so, the journal aims to counter the growing trend of increasing sub-specialization, which can result in "tunnel-vision" and the isolation of significant surgical advancements within specific specialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信