A Comparison of Actual Graft Weight and Estimated Graft Volume Calculated with New Software Used for Anatomical and Volumetric Analysis of the Liver with Computed Tomography in Living Liver Donors Canlı Karaciğer Vericilerinde Karaciğerin Bilgisayarlı Tomografi ile Anatomik ve Hacimsel Analizi için Kullanılan Yeni Bir Yazılım Programı ile Hesaplanan Tahmini Greft Hacmi ile Gerçek Greft Ağırlığının Karşılaştırılması

ÖZÇELİK Ü., Eren E., Tutpınar Y., Urut D. U., Tokaç M., Dinçkan A.

Experimed, cilt.11, sa.2, ss.96-101, 2021 (Scopus) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 11 Sayı: 2
  • Basım Tarihi: 2021
  • Doi Numarası: 10.26650/experimed.2021.942836
  • Dergi Adı: Experimed
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Scopus, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.96-101
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: estimated graft vol-ume; actual graft weight, Liver transplantation, living liver donor, software
  • Lokman Hekim Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objective: In the living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) context, accurate estimation of the graft weight to recipient weight ratio (GRWR) and future donor liver remnant volume by pre-operative volumetric analysis is very important. We aimed to compare the estimated graft volume (EGV) calculated with the LiverVision® software with the actual graft weight (AGW) measured in the back-ta-ble in this study. Material and Method: Patients who underwent right lobe LDLT and liver donors between 01.01.2018-30.05.2020 were retrospec-tively evaluated. Demographic data, body mass index, EGV, AGW and GRWR were recorded. Linear regression analysis, Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots were utilized for evaluation of the relationships between continuous variables. Results: A total of 108 liver donors were included in the study. The mean age of the donors was 32.6±8.8 years and mean EGV was 902.5±147.1 mL for all donors. The mean AGW was 890.6±145.9 g for all donors. A significant correlation was found between EGV and AGW for all donors (r=0.856, p<0.001). The mean difference between EGV and AGW was 11.9±78.5 for all donors. 105 of the 108 (97.2%) measurements were within the 95% ranges of agreement between EGV and AGW according to the Bland-Altman plot. According to the regression model created to calculate the AGW, the formula AGW (g)=0.85xEGV (mL)+124.5 was obtained (r2=0.732, p<0.001). Conclusion: The liver volumes of the donors were successfully estimated with computed tomography (CT) with the newly developed Turkish semi-automatic LiverVision® software.