4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Assessment of Future Remnant Liver Function Using Hepatobiliary Scintigraphy in Patients Undergoing Major Liver Resection

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 369-378

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-009-1085-2

Keywords

Hepatectomy; Liver failure; Liver function; Liver volume; Mebrofenin; CT volumetry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tc-99m-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HBS) was used as a quantitative method to evaluate liver function. The aim of this study was to compare future remnant liver function assessed by Tc-99m-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy with future remnant liver volume in the prediction of liver failure after major liver resection. Computed tomography (CT) volumetry and Tc-99m-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy were performed prior to major resection in 55 high-risk patients, including 30 patients with parenchymal liver disease. Liver volume was expressed as percentage of total liver volume or as standardized future remnant liver volume. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to identify a cutoff value for future remnant liver function in predicting postoperative liver failure. Postoperative liver failure occurred in nine patients. A liver function cutoff value of 2.69%/min/m(2) was calculated by ROC curve analysis. Tc-99m-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy demonstrated better sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value compared to future remnant liver volume. Using Tc-99m-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy, one cutoff value suffices in both compromised and noncompromised patients. Preoperative Tc-99m-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy is a valuable technique to estimate the risk of postoperative liver failure. Especially in patients with uncertain quality of the liver parenchyma, Tc-99m-mebrofenin HBS proved of more value than CT volumetry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available