4.5 Article

Virtual Liver Resection and Volumetric Analysis of the Future Liver Remnant using Open Source Image Processing Software

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 34, 期 10, 页码 2426-2433

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-010-0663-5

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background After extended liver resection, a remnant liver that is too small can lead to postresection liver failure. To reduce this risk, preoperative evaluation of the future liver remnant volume (FLRV) is critical. The open-source OsiriX (R) PAC software system can be downloaded for free and used by nonradiologists to calculate liver volume using a stand-alone Apple computer. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of OsiriX (R) CT volumetry for predicting liver resection volume and FLVR in patients undergoing partial hepatectomy. Methods Preoperative contrast-enhanced liver CT scans of patients who underwent partial hepatectomy were analyzed by three observers. Two surgical trainees measured the total liver volume, resection volume, and tumor volume using OsiriX (R), and a radiologist measured these volumes using CT scanner-linked Aquarius iNtuition (R) sbftware. Resection volume was correlated with prospectively determined resection weight, and differences in the measured liver volumes were analyzed. Interobserver variability was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. Results 25 patients (M/F ratio: 13/12) with a median age of 61 (range, 34-77) years were included. There were significant correlations between the weight and volume of the resected specimens (Pearson's correlation coefficient: R-2 = 0.95). There were no major differences in total liver volumes, resection volumes, or tumor volumes for observers 1, 2, and 3. Bland-Altman plots showed a small interobserver variability. The mean time to complete liver volumetry for one patient using OsiriX (R) was 19 +/- 3 min. Conclusions OsiriX liver volumetry performed by surgeons is an accurate and time-efficient method for predicting resection volume and FLRV.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据