Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2016
Accuracy of simple approaches to assessing liver volume in radiological imaging.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roloff A M, Heiss P, Schneider T P, Quadrat A, Kromrey M L, Zeman F, Stroszczynski C, Mensel B, Kühn J P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of measured diameters and calculated volume indices for determining liver size and to derive a simple approach for estimating liver volume.
METHODS: Three hundred twenty-nine volunteers (cohort A) were grouped according to liver volume: small (n = 109), medium (n = 110), and large (n = 110). True liver volume was determined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using manual segmentation. Maximum diameters (maxdiam) of the liver and distances in midclavicular line (MCL) were measured. Volume indices were calculated as a simple product of the measured diameters. The calculated volume indices were calibrated to predict true liver volume. Performance of the calibrated method was evaluated in a control group (cohort B) including randomly selected volunteers (n = 110) and a patient group with histopathologically proven parenchymal liver diseases (n = 28).
RESULTS: In cohort A, there was strong correlation between diameters and true liver volume (r s = 0.631-0.823). Calculated volume indices had slightly better correlation (maxdiam r s = 0.903, MCL r s = 0.920). A calibration index was calculated from the volumes and diameters determined in cohort A. Application of this calibration on cohort B verified a very strong correlation between calibrated volume indices and true liver volume (maxdiam r s = 0.920, MCL r s = 0.909). In addition, the low mean difference between predicted liver volume (maxdiam = -70.9 cm(3);MCL = -88.4 cm(3)) and true liver volume confirms that the calibrated method allows accurate assessment of liver volume.
CONCLUSIONS: Both simple diameters and volume indices allow estimating liver size. A simple calibration formula enables prediction of true liver volume without significant expense.
METHODS: Three hundred twenty-nine volunteers (cohort A) were grouped according to liver volume: small (n = 109), medium (n = 110), and large (n = 110). True liver volume was determined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using manual segmentation. Maximum diameters (maxdiam) of the liver and distances in midclavicular line (MCL) were measured. Volume indices were calculated as a simple product of the measured diameters. The calculated volume indices were calibrated to predict true liver volume. Performance of the calibrated method was evaluated in a control group (cohort B) including randomly selected volunteers (n = 110) and a patient group with histopathologically proven parenchymal liver diseases (n = 28).
RESULTS: In cohort A, there was strong correlation between diameters and true liver volume (r s = 0.631-0.823). Calculated volume indices had slightly better correlation (maxdiam r s = 0.903, MCL r s = 0.920). A calibration index was calculated from the volumes and diameters determined in cohort A. Application of this calibration on cohort B verified a very strong correlation between calibrated volume indices and true liver volume (maxdiam r s = 0.920, MCL r s = 0.909). In addition, the low mean difference between predicted liver volume (maxdiam = -70.9 cm(3);MCL = -88.4 cm(3)) and true liver volume confirms that the calibrated method allows accurate assessment of liver volume.
CONCLUSIONS: Both simple diameters and volume indices allow estimating liver size. A simple calibration formula enables prediction of true liver volume without significant expense.