File Download
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1007/s12072-011-9264-0
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-81855185263
- PMID: 21484120
- WOS: WOS:000297133500008
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Validation of graft and standard liver size predictions in right liver living donor liver transplantation
Title | Validation of graft and standard liver size predictions in right liver living donor liver transplantation |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Liver transplantation Living donor Size Standard |
Issue Date | 2011 |
Publisher | Springer New York LLC. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.springer.com/west/home/medicine?SGWID=4-10054-70-173733513-0 |
Citation | Hepatology International, 2011, v. 5 n. 4, p. 913-917 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Purpose: To assess the accuracy of a formula derived from 159 living liver donors to estimate the liver size of a normal subject: standard liver weight (g) = 218 + body weight (kg) × 12.3 + 51 (if male). Standard liver volume (SLV) is attained by a conversion factor of 1.19 mL/g. Methods: The total liver volume (TLV) of each of the subsequent consecutive 126 living liver donors was determined using the right liver graft weight (RGW) on the back table, right/left liver volume ratio on computed tomography, and the conversion factor. The estimated right liver graft weight (ERGW) was determined by the right liver volume on computed tomography (CT) and the conversion factor. SLV and ERGW were compared with TLV and RGW, respectively, by paired sample t test. Results: Donor characteristics of both series were similar. SLV and TLV were 1,099.6 ± 139.6 and 1,108.5 ± 175.2 mL, respectively, (R 2 = 0.476) (p = 0.435). The difference between SLV and TLV was only -8.9 ± 128.2 mL (-1.0 ± 11.7%). ERGW and RGW were 601.5 ± 104.1 and 597.1 ± 102.2 g, respectively (R 2 = 0.781) (p = 0.332). The conversion factor from liver weight to volume for this series was 1.20 mL/g. The difference between ERGW and RGW was 4.3 ± 49.8 g (0.3 ± 8.8%). ERGW was smaller than RGW for over 10% (range 0.21-40.66 g) in 18 of the 126 donors. None had the underestimation of RGW by over 20%. Conclusion: SLV and graft weight estimations were accurate using the formula and conversion factor. © 2011 The Author(s). |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/135538 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 5.9 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.813 |
PubMed Central ID | |
ISI Accession Number ID | |
References |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Chan, SC | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Lo, CM | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Chok, KSH | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Sharr, WW | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Cheung, TT | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Tsang, SHY | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Chan, ACY | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Fan, ST | en_HK |
dc.date.accessioned | 2011-07-27T01:36:42Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2011-07-27T01:36:42Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.citation | Hepatology International, 2011, v. 5 n. 4, p. 913-917 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issn | 1936-0533 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/135538 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose: To assess the accuracy of a formula derived from 159 living liver donors to estimate the liver size of a normal subject: standard liver weight (g) = 218 + body weight (kg) × 12.3 + 51 (if male). Standard liver volume (SLV) is attained by a conversion factor of 1.19 mL/g. Methods: The total liver volume (TLV) of each of the subsequent consecutive 126 living liver donors was determined using the right liver graft weight (RGW) on the back table, right/left liver volume ratio on computed tomography, and the conversion factor. The estimated right liver graft weight (ERGW) was determined by the right liver volume on computed tomography (CT) and the conversion factor. SLV and ERGW were compared with TLV and RGW, respectively, by paired sample t test. Results: Donor characteristics of both series were similar. SLV and TLV were 1,099.6 ± 139.6 and 1,108.5 ± 175.2 mL, respectively, (R 2 = 0.476) (p = 0.435). The difference between SLV and TLV was only -8.9 ± 128.2 mL (-1.0 ± 11.7%). ERGW and RGW were 601.5 ± 104.1 and 597.1 ± 102.2 g, respectively (R 2 = 0.781) (p = 0.332). The conversion factor from liver weight to volume for this series was 1.20 mL/g. The difference between ERGW and RGW was 4.3 ± 49.8 g (0.3 ± 8.8%). ERGW was smaller than RGW for over 10% (range 0.21-40.66 g) in 18 of the 126 donors. None had the underestimation of RGW by over 20%. Conclusion: SLV and graft weight estimations were accurate using the formula and conversion factor. © 2011 The Author(s). | en_HK |
dc.language | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Springer New York LLC. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.springer.com/west/home/medicine?SGWID=4-10054-70-173733513-0 | en_HK |
dc.relation.ispartof | Hepatology International | en_HK |
dc.rights | The Author(s) | en_US |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | en_US |
dc.subject | Liver transplantation | en_HK |
dc.subject | Living donor | en_HK |
dc.subject | Size | en_HK |
dc.subject | Standard | en_HK |
dc.title | Validation of graft and standard liver size predictions in right liver living donor liver transplantation | en_HK |
dc.type | Article | en_HK |
dc.identifier.openurl | http://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=1936-0533&volume=&spage=&epage=&date=2011&atitle=Validation+of+graft+and+standard+liver+size+predictions+in+right+liver+living+donor+liver+transplantation | - |
dc.identifier.email | Chan, SC: chanlsc@hkucc.hku.hk | en_HK |
dc.identifier.email | Lo, CM: chungmlo@hkucc.hku.hk | en_HK |
dc.identifier.email | Chan, ACY: acchan@hku.hk | en_HK |
dc.identifier.email | Fan, ST: stfan@hku.hk | en_HK |
dc.identifier.authority | Chan, SC=rp01568 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.authority | Lo, CM=rp00412 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.authority | Chan, ACY=rp00310 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.authority | Fan, ST=rp00355 | en_HK |
dc.description.nature | published_or_final_version | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s12072-011-9264-0 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.pmid | 21484120 | - |
dc.identifier.pmcid | PMC3215865 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-81855185263 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 187623 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-81855185263&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpage | en_HK |
dc.identifier.volume | 5 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issue | 4 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.spage | 913 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.epage | 917 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1936-0541 | en_US |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000297133500008 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United States | en_HK |
dc.description.other | Springer Open Choice, 21 Feb 2012 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Chan, SC=7404255575 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Lo, CM=7401771672 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Chok, KSH=6508229426 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Sharr, WW=36864499000 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Cheung, TT=7103334165 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Tsang, SHY=7102255986 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Chan, ACY=15828849100 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Fan, ST=7402678224 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.citeulike | 9119539 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 1936-0533 | - |