Volumetric graft changes after liver transplantation: evidence of adaptation to recipient body size.

It is believed that whole liver grafts adjust their size to fit the body size of the recipient after transplantation, despite a lack of evidence. The aim of this study was to test this hypothesis. This was a retrospective cohort study of 113 liver transplantations performed at Karolinska University Hospital. The cohort was divided based on graft volume-to-standard liver volume ratio (GV/SLV) into quartiles of small, mid, and large grafts. Serial volumetric assessment was performed on the day of transplantation and at posttransplant check-ups early (<2 mo) and late (9-13 mo) after transplantation using computed tomography (CT) volumetry. Change in GV/SLV ratio over time was analyzed with ANOVA repeated measures. A multiple regression model was used to investigate the influence of intraoperative blood flow, recipient body size, age, and relative sickness on graft volume changes. Between the three time points, mean GV/SLV ratio adapted to 0.55-0.94-1.00 in small grafts (n = 29, P < 0.001); 0.87-1.18-1.13 in midgrafts (n = 56, P < 0.001); 1.11-1.51-1.18 in large grafts (n = 28, P < 0.001). Regression analysis showed a positive correlation between posttransplant graft growth and portal flow (ß = 1.18, P = 0.005), arterial flow (ß = 0.17, P = 0.001), and recipient body surface area (ß = 59.85, P < 0.001). A negative correlation was observed for graft weight-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR; ß = -33.12, P < 0.001). Grafts with initial GV/SLV-ratio < 0.6 adapt toward the ideal volume for recipient body size 1 year after transplantation. The disparity between graft size relative to recipient body size, and the portal and arterial perfusion, influence volumetric graft changes.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This is the first and largest human study to verify the hypothesis that whole liver grafts adjust their size to match recipient body size 1 year after transplantation-a phenomenon that has previously only been observed in experimental animal studies and human case reports. The direction of volumetric changes is driven by the disparity between graft size relative to recipient body surface area and weight, as well as the intraoperative portal- and arterial graft perfusion.

Innovative formulae for the estimation of standard liver volume in the era of widespread imaging analysis software.

BACKGROUND: Various formulae have been used for the estimation of standard liver volume (SLV) in preparation for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). However, these formulae have the disadvantage of being constructed using parameters that are substantially affected by the patient's condition. Here, we aimed to establish more precise formulae that are less affected by the general condition of the patient. METHODS: We analyzed the liver volumes of LDLT donors and patients with normal livers (total: n = 213) using the SYNAPSE VINCENT imaging analysis system, to develop new formulae. The accuracy of the new formulae were compared with those of existing formulae in a separate validation group of healthy patients (n = 200). The new formulae were also validated using 81 LDLT recipients to assess their utility for graft selection in LDLT. RESULTS: Body surface area (BSA) and skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) independently affected total liver volume (TLV). We produced new formulae for SLV incorporating SMI: SLV = 32.2 × L3-SMI-466.9 for men, with R2 .92, and 25.7 × L3-SMI-55.97 for women, with R2 .79 (alongside a BSA formula with R2 .57), which provided the most accurate predictions of TLV in the validation group. A graft volume (GV)/SLV <.35, calculated using the new formulae, predicted the postoperative prognosis, including the development of small-for-size syndrome, sepsis, or acute rejection, significantly more effectively than GV/SLV using the previous formulae. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed L3-SMI-based formula is more accurate for the estimation of SLV than previously reported formulae, and may thus help to improve the safety of LDLT.

Preoperative estimation of hemi-liver volume using standard liver volume and portal vein diameter ratio in living donor liver transplantation.

Backgrounds/Aims: Although body surface area (BSA)-based standard liver volume (SLV) formulae have been used for living donor liver transplantation and hepatic resection, hemi-liver volume (HLV) is needed more frequently. HLV can be assessed using right or left portal vein diameter (RPVD or LPVD). The aim of this study was to validate the reliability of using portal vein diameter ratio (PVDR) for assessing HLV in living liver donors. Methods: This study included 92 living liver donors (59 males and 33 females) who underwent surgery between January 2020 and December 2020. Computed tomography (CT) images were used for measurements. Results: Mean age of donors was 35.5 ± 7.2 years. CT volumetry-measured total liver volume (TLV), right HLV, left HLV, and percentage of right HLV in TLV were 1,442.9 ± 314.2 mL, 931.5 ± 206.4 mL, 551.4 ± 126.5 mL, and 64.6% ± 3.6%, respectively. RPVD, LPVD, and main portal vein diameter were 12.2 ± 1.5 mm, 10.0 ± 1.3 mm, and 15.3 ± 1.7 mm, respectively (corresponding square values: 149.9 ± 36.9 mm2, 101.5 ± 25.2 mm2, and 237.2 ± 52.2 mm2, respectively). The sum of RPVD2 and LPVD2 was 251.1 ± 56.9 mm2. BSA-based SLV was 1,279.5 ± 188.7 mL (error rate: 9.1% ± 14.4%). SLV formula- and PVDR-based right HLV was 760.0 ± 130.7 mL (error rate: 16.2% ± 13.3%). Conclusions: Combining BSA-based SLV and PVDR appears to be a simple method to predict right or left HLV in living donors or split liver transplantation.

Comparison of skeletal muscle index-based formula and body surface area-based formula for calculating standard liver volume.

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: Formula-derived standard liver volume (SLV) has been clinically used for living donor liver transplantation and hepatic resection. The majority of currently available SLV formulae are based on body surface are (BSA). However, they often show a wide range of error. Skeletal muscle index measured at the third lumbar vertebra level (L3SMI) appears to reflect lean body mass. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of L3SMI-based formula and BSA-based formula for calculating SLV. METHODS: The study cohort was 500 hundred living liver donors who underwent surgery between January 2010 and December 2013. Computed tomography images were used for liver volumetry and skeletal muscle area measurement. RESULTS: The study cohort included 250 male and 250 female donors. Their age, BSA, L3SMI, and body mass index were 26.8±8.7 years, 1.68±0.16 m2, 45.6±9.0 cm2/m2, and 21.7±2.5 kg/m2, respectively. The BSA-based SLV formula was "SLV (ml)=-362.3+901.5×BSA (m2) (r=0.71, r2=0.50, p<0.001)". The L3SMI-based SLV formula was "SLV (ml)=471.9+14.9×L3SMI (cm2/m2) (r=0.65, r2=0.42, p<0.001)". Correlation coefficients were similar in subgroup analyses with 250 male donors and 250 female donors. There was a crude correlation between L3SMI and body mass index (r=0.51, r2=0.27, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that SLV calculation with L3SMI-based formula does not appear to be superior to the currently available BSA-based formulae.

Effect of pre-transplant sarcopenia on the estimation of standard liver volume in living-donor liver transplant candidates: risk factor for post-transplant small-for-size syndrome? A retrospective study.

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether LT candidates with sarcopenia are at an increased risk of receiving an inappropriate standard liver volume (SLV) estimation by standard body weight (BW)-derived SLV formula. Non-BW-SLV estimation formulas were tested in 262 LDLT donors and compared to a standard BW-SLV formula. The anthropometric parameters used were the thoracic width (TW-SLV) and thoracoabdominal circumference (TAC-SLV). Subsequently, sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic LDLT candidates (total, 217 patients) were compared in terms of estimated BW-SLV (routine method) and non-BW-SLV. In donors, TW-SLV showed comparable concordance with CT scan measured total liver volume as BW-SLV. The performance of TAC-SLV was low. In recipients, the prevalence of pre-LT sarcopenia was 30.4%. Sarcopenic patients were attributed a significantly lower BW-SLV than non-sarcopenic (sarcopenia vs no-sarcopenia, 1063.8 ml [1004.1-1118.4] vs. 1220.7 ml [1115.0-1306.6], P < 0.001), despite comparable TW-SLV, age, body height, and gender prevalence. As a result, sarcopenic patients received a graft with a statistically lower weight at organ procurement and developed more frequently a small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) according to the Dahm et al. (27.7% vs. 6.8%, P < 0.01) and Kyushu (28.7% vs. 9.2%, P < 0.01) definition. Therefore, In sarcopenic patients, BW-SLV formulas are affected by an high risk of SLV underestimation, thus exposing them to an increased risk of post-LT SFSS.

Living donor liver transplantation: looking back at my 30 years of experience.

Since I moved from the National Cancer Center to Shinshu University, I have been performing living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), which is the only way to save the life of patients with end-stage liver disease. In June 1990, we performed the first LDLT that case was the first successful case in Japan. The patient remains healthy and is enjoying a normal life still 28 years after the transplant. In 1993, we successfully performed adult-to-adult LDLT, which was the first successful case in the world. The patient enjoyed a normal life for 17 years until she died at 70 years of age. For small children, the left liver of adult donors is too large to close the abdomen. However, in adolescents or adults, even when the whole right liver is used, the volume of the graft is too small. The concept of the standard liver volume (SLV) has proven very important for this procedure and is calculated as follows: 706.2 × body surface area + 2.4. We proposed a method for evaluating the congestion of the liver by Doppler ultrasound. In addition, we devised the right lateral sector graft. Over the years, we have contributed to LDLT in many ways and published many papers. We feel that our findings are quite useful not only for LDLT but also for other hepatectomy procedures.

Efficacy of a combination of gadolinium?ethoxybenzyl?diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid enhanced MR T1 mapping and liver volume to standard liver volume ratio for estimation of liver function / 中华放射学杂志

ObjectiveTo investigate the feasibility of a combination of gadolinium?ethoxybenzyl?diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd?EOB?DTPA) enhanced MR T1 mapping and liver volume to standard liver volume ratio in quantitative assessment of liver function. Methods Eighty patients who underwent Gd?EOB?DTPA enhanced MR T1 mapping were prospectively enrolled, and the Child?Pugh score and the model for end?stage liver (MELD) score were evaluated and grouped. Patients were divided into three groups according Child?pugh score as follows: normal liver function (NLF, n=26), liver cirrhosis with Child?Pugh A (LCA,n=30), liver cirrhosis with Child?Pugh B+C (LCB+LCC, n=24), and were also divided into two groups according MELD, MELD≤8 (n=57) and MELD≥9 (n=23). Variable flip angle T1 mapping sequences were performed before and 20 minutes after Gd?EOB?DTPA administration. T1pre, T1 post were measured on T1 maps and ΔT1 were calculated. The images of hepatobiliary phase were transferred to the workstation to measure liver volume (LV). Standard liver volume (SLV) were calculated with the heights and weights of patients, and then liver volume to standard liver volume ratio (LV/SLV) was calculated. One?way ANOVA was used to compared the indexes (T1 post, T1 post×LV/SLV, ΔT1, ΔT1×LV/SLV) in different liver function groups of NLF,LCA,LCB+LCC. The t tests were used to compare the indexes(T1post, T1post×LV/SLV, ΔT1, ΔT1×LV/SLV) in MELD≤8 and MELD≥9 groups. ROC curve analysis was used to compare the diagnostic performance of T1post, T1post×LV/SLV, ΔT1, ΔT1×LV/SLV. Results T1post, T1post×LV/SLV, ΔT1, ΔT1×LV/SLV showed significant difference between different liver function groups (P<0.05). All the indexes can distinguish different groups. Multiplied by LV/SLV,the AUC of ΔT1×LV/SLV were 0.902 in the MELD≤8 and MELD≥9,which was slightly higher than that of ΔT1 (AUC=0.886). The AUCs of ΔT1×LV/SLV were 0.771, 1.000, 0.924 in the NLF and LCA, NLF and LCB+LCC, LCA and LCB+LCC groups, which were slightly higher than that of ΔT1 (0.764, 0.992, 0.904). The AUCs of T1post, T1post×LV/SLV were 0.824, 0.789 in the MELD≤8 and MELD≥9, respectively. The AUCs of T1post in the NLF and LCA, NLF and LCB+LCC, LCA and LCB+LCC groups were 0.713,0.987,0.915, respectively, and the AUCs of T1post×LV/SLV were 0.687,0.973,0.871.The AUCs of T1post×LV/SLV had a slightly lower AUC amongthe different liver function groups than T1post. Conclusion Gd?EOB?DTPA enhanced MRI T1 mapping is useful for estimating liver function. T1 relaxation times and reduction rates of T1 relaxation times with a combination of the LV/SLV may more reliably estimate liver function.

Efficacy of a combination of gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid enhanced MR T1 mapping and liver volume to standard liver volume ratio for estimation of liver function / 中华放射学杂志

Objective@#To investigate the feasibility of a combination of gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) enhanced MR T1 mapping and liver volume to standard liver volume ratio in quantitative assessment of liver function.@*Methods@#Eighty patients who underwent Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MR T1 mapping were prospectively enrolled, and the Child-Pugh score and the model for end-stage liver (MELD) score were evaluated and grouped. Patients were divided into three groups according Child-pugh score as follows: normal liver function (NLF, n=26), liver cirrhosis with Child-Pugh A (LCA,n=30), liver cirrhosis with Child-Pugh B+C (LCB+LCC, n=24), and were also divided into two groups according MELD, MELD≤8 (n=57) and MELD≥9 (n=23). Variable flip angle T1 mapping sequences were performed before and 20 minutes after Gd-EOB-DTPA administration. T1pre, T1 post were measured on T1 maps and ΔT1 were calculated. The images of hepatobiliary phase were transferred to the workstation to measure liver volume (LV). Standard liver volume (SLV) were calculated with the heights and weights of patients, and then liver volume to standard liver volume ratio (LV/SLV) was calculated. One-way ANOVA was used to compared the indexes (T1post, T1 post×LV/SLV, ΔT1, ΔT1×LV/SLV) in different liver function groups of NLF,LCA,LCB+LCC. The t tests were used to compare the indexes (T1post, T1post×LV/SLV, ΔT1, ΔT1×LV/SLV) in MELD≤8 and MELD≥9 groups. ROC curve analysis was used to compare the diagnostic performance of T1post, T1post×LV/SLV, ΔT1, ΔT1×LV/SLV.@*Results@#T1post, T1post×LV/SLV, ΔT1, ΔT1×LV/SLV showed significant difference between different liver function groups (P<0.05). All the indexes can distinguish different groups. Multiplied by LV/SLV,the AUC of ΔT1×LV/SLV were 0.902 in the MELD≤8 and MELD≥9,which was slightly higher than that of ΔT1 (AUC=0.886). The AUCs of ΔT1×LV/SLV were 0.771, 1.000, 0.924 in the NLF and LCA, NLF and LCB+LCC, LCA and LCB+LCC groups, which were slightly higher than that of ΔT1 (0.764, 0.992, 0.904). The AUCs of T1post, T1post×LV/SLV were 0.824, 0.789 in the MELD≤8 and MELD≥9, respectively. The AUCs of T1post in the NLF and LCA, NLF and LCB+LCC, LCA and LCB+LCC groups were 0.713,0.987,0.915, respectively, and the AUCs of T1post×LV/SLV were 0.687,0.973,0.871.The AUCs of T1post×LV/SLV had a slightly lower AUC amongthe different liver function groups than T1post.@*Conclusion@#Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MRI T1 mapping is useful for estimating liver function. T1 relaxation times and reduction rates of T1 relaxation times with a combination of the LV/SLV may more reliably estimate liver function.

Estimation of Standard Liver Volume Using CT Volume, Body Composition, and Abdominal Geometry Measurements.

PURPOSE: The present study developed formulas for estimation of standard liver volume (SLV) with high accuracy for the Korean population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SLV estimation formulas were established using gender-balanced and gender-unbalanced measurements of anthropometric variables, body composition variables, and abdominal geometry of healthy Koreans (n=790). Total liver volume excluding blood volume, was measured based on CT volumetry. RESULTS: SLV estimation formulas as preferred in various conditions of data availability were suggested in the present study. The suggested SLV estimation formulas in the present study were found superior to existing formulas, with an increased accuracy of 4.0-217.5 mL for absolute error and 0.2-18.7% for percentage of absolute error. CONCLUSION: SLV estimation formulas using gender-balanced measurements showed better performance than those using gender-unbalanced measurements. Inclusion of body composition and abdominal geometry variables contributed to improved performance of SLV estimation.

Estimation of Standard Liver Volume Using CT Volume, Body Composition, and Abdominal Geometry Measurements

PURPOSE: The present study developed formulas for estimation of standard liver volume (SLV) with high accuracy for the Korean population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SLV estimation formulas were established using gender-balanced and gender-unbalanced measurements of anthropometric variables, body composition variables, and abdominal geometry of healthy Koreans (n=790). Total liver volume excluding blood volume, was measured based on CT volumetry. RESULTS: SLV estimation formulas as preferred in various conditions of data availability were suggested in the present study. The suggested SLV estimation formulas in the present study were found superior to existing formulas, with an increased accuracy of 4.0–217.5 mL for absolute error and 0.2–18.7% for percentage of absolute error. CONCLUSION: SLV estimation formulas using gender-balanced measurements showed better performance than those using gender-unbalanced measurements. Inclusion of body composition and abdominal geometry variables contributed to improved performance of SLV estimation.

New formula for predicting standard liver volume in Chinese adults.

AIM: To obtain a reference range of morphological indices and establish a formula to accurately predict standard liver volume (SLV) in Chinese adults. METHODS: Computed tomography (CT)-estimated total liver volume (CTLV) was determined in 369 Chinese adults. Age, sex, body weight, body height, body mass index, and body surface area (BSA) were recorded using CT. Total splenic volume, portal venous diameter (PVD), splenic venous diameter (SVD), and portal venous cross-sectional area (PVCSA) were also measured by CT. Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of each parameter on CTLV and to develop a new SLV formula. The accuracy of the new formula was compared with the existing formulas in a validation group. RESULTS: The average CTLV was 1205.41 ± 257.53 cm3 (range, 593.80-2250.10 cm3). The average of PVD, SVD and PVCSA was 9.34 ± 1.51 mm, 7.40 ± 1.31 mm and 173.22 ± 48.11 mm2, respectively. The CT-estimated splenic volume of healthy adults varied markedly (range, 46.60-2892.30 cm3). Sex, age, body height, body weight, body mass index, and BSA were significantly correlated with CTLV. BSA showed the strongest correlation (r = 0.546, P < 0.001), and was used to establish a new model for calculating SLV: SLV (cm3) = 758.259 × BSA (m2)-124.272 (R2 = 0.299, P < 0.001). This formula also predicted CTLV more accurately than the existing formulas, but overestimated CTLV in elderly subjects > 70 years of age, and underestimated liver volume when CTLV was > 1800 cm3. CONCLUSION: Our new BSA-based formula is more accurate than other formulas in estimating SLV in Chinese adults.

Size mismatch in liver transplantation.

Size mismatch is an unique and inevitable but critical issue in live donor liver transplantation. Unmatched metabolic demand of recipient as well as physiologic mismatch aggravates the damage to liver graft, inevitably leading to graft failure on recipient. Also, an excessive resection of liver graft for better recipient outcome in live donor liver transplant may jeopardize the healthy donor well-being and even put donor life in danger. There is a fine balance between resected graft volume required to meet the recipient's metabolic demand and residual graft volume required for donor safety. The obvious clinical necessity of finding that balance has prompted a clinical need and promoted the improvement of knowledge and development of management strategies for size-mismatched transplants. The development of the size-matching methodology has significantly improved graft outcome and recipient survival in live donor liver transplants. On the other hand, the effect of size mismatch in cadaveric transplants has never been observed as being so pronounced. The importance of matching of the donor recipient size has been unrecognized in cadaveric liver transplant. In this review, we attempt to summarize the current most updated knowledge on the subject, particularly addressing the definition and complications of size-mismatched cadaveric liver transplant, as well as management strategies.

Estimation of liver volume in the western Indian population.

BACKGROUND: A number of formulae to estimate standard liver volume (SLV) exist. However, studies have shown that only certain formulae are applicable to a particular patient population, whereas the other formulae have not been accurate in estimating the SLV. Aim of this study was to assess which formula is most accurate in estimating SLV in the western Indian population. METHODS: Data for donors of living donor liver transplantation from September 2014 to July 2015 was analyzed. Liver volumes were measured using computed tomography volumetry (CTV). SLV was calculated using formulae by the currently existing formulae. The mean SLV and CTV, percentage error in the SLV, and the correlation between SLV and CTV were calculated. RESULTS: Fifty-nine healthy subjects underwent donor hepatectomy [28 (47.5 %) males]. The mean age, mean body mass index (BMI), and mean body surface area (BSA) were 31.8 ± 8.8 years, 23.8 ± 3.7 kg/m(2), and 1.6 ± 0.4, respectively. Mean CTV was 1178 ± 246.8 mL. Difference between mean SLV and mean CTV ranged from -133.5 (±189) mL to 632.2 (±190.2) mL. Mean SLV was significantly different from CTV by all the formulae except Urata. Percentage of population whose SLV was within 15 % of the mean CTV ranged from 1.7 % to 67.8 %, with the highest percentage obtained by using Fu-Gui's formula. However, there was wide inter-individual variation on scatter plots between SLV and CTV by both these formulae. CONCLUSION: Currently existing formulae were not accurate in estimating SLV in our population.

Calculation of standard liver volume in Korean adults with analysis of confounding variables.

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: Standard liver volume (SLV) is an important parameter that has been used as a reference value to estimate the graft matching in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to determine a reliable SLV formula for Korean adult patients as compared with the 15 SLV formulae from other studies and further estimate SLV formula by gender and body mass index (BMI). METHODS: Computed tomography liver volumetry was performed in 1,000 living donors for LDLT and regression formulae for SLV was calculated. Individual donor data were applied to the 15 previously published SLV formulae, as compared with the SLV formula derived in this study. Analysis for confounding variables of BMI and gender was also performed. RESULTS: Two formulae, "SLV (ml)=908.204×BSA-464.728" with DuBois body surface area (BSA) formula and "SLV (ml)=893.485×BSA-439.169" with Monsteller BSA formula, were derived by using the profiles of the 1,000 living donors included in the study. Comparison with other 15 other formulae, all except for Chouker formula showed the mean volume percentage errors of 4.8-5.4%. The gender showed no significant effect on total liver volume (TLV), but there was a significant increase in TLV as BMI increased. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggested that most SLV formulae showed a crudely applicable range of SLV estimation for Korean adults. Considering the volume error in estimating SLV, further SLV studies with larger population from multiple centers should be performed to enhance its predictability. Our results suggested that classifying SLV formulae by BMI and gender is unnecessary.

A new formula for calculating standard liver volume for living donor liver transplantation without using body weight.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The standard liver volume (SLV) is widely used in liver surgery, especially for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). All the reported formulas for SLV use body surface area or body weight, which can be influenced strongly by the general condition of the patient. METHODS: We analyzed the liver volumes of 180 Japanese donor candidates and 160 Swiss patients with normal livers to develop a new formula. The dataset was randomly divided into two subsets, the test and validation sample, stratified by race. The new formula was validated using 50 LDLT recipients. RESULTS: Without using body weight-related variables, age, thoracic width measured using computed tomography, and race independently predicted the total liver volume (TLV). A new formula: 203.3-(3.61×age)+(58.7×thoracic width)-(463.7×race [1=Asian, 0=Caucasian]), most accurately predicted the TLV in the validation dataset as compared with any other formulas. The graft volume for LDLT was correlated with the postoperative prothrombin time, and the graft volume/SLV ratio calculated using the new formula was significantly better correlated with the postoperative prothrombin time than the graft volume/SLV ratio calculated using the other formulas or the graft volume/body weight ratio. CONCLUSIONS: The new formula derived using the age, thoracic width and race predicted both the TLV in the healthy patient group and the SLV in LDLT recipients more accurately than any other previously reported formulas.

Calculation of standard liver volume in Korean adults with analysis of confounding variables

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: Standard liver volume (SLV) is an important parameter that has been used as a reference value to estimate the graft matching in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to determine a reliable SLV formula for Korean adult patients as compared with the 15 SLV formulae from other studies and further estimate SLV formula by gender and body mass index (BMI). METHODS: Computed tomography liver volumetry was performed in 1,000 living donors for LDLT and regression formulae for SLV was calculated. Individual donor data were applied to the 15 previously published SLV formulae, as compared with the SLV formula derived in this study. Analysis for confounding variables of BMI and gender was also performed. RESULTS: Two formulae, "SLV (ml)=908.204xBSA-464.728" with DuBois body surface area (BSA) formula and "SLV (ml)=893.485xBSA-439.169" with Monsteller BSA formula, were derived by using the profiles of the 1,000 living donors included in the study. Comparison with other 15 other formulae, all except for Chouker formula showed the mean volume percentage errors of 4.8-5.4%. The gender showed no significant effect on total liver volume (TLV), but there was a significant increase in TLV as BMI increased. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggested that most SLV formulae showed a crudely applicable range of SLV estimation for Korean adults. Considering the volume error in estimating SLV, further SLV studies with larger population from multiple centers should be performed to enhance its predictability. Our results suggested that classifying SLV formulae by BMI and gender is unnecessary.

A formula to calculate the standard liver volume in children and its application in pediatric liver transplantation.

Due to a lack of available size-matched liver grafts from children, most pediatric recipients are transplanted with technical variant grafts from adult donors. Size requirements for these grafts are not well defined, and consequences of mismatched graft sizes in pediatric liver transplantation are not known. Existing formulas for calculation of a standard liver volume are mostly derived from adults disregarding the age-related percentual liver weight changes in children. In this study, we aimed to establish a formula for general use in children to calculate the standard liver volume. In a second step, the formula was applied in pediatric patients undergoing liver transplantation at our institution between 2000 and 2010 (n = 377). Analysis of a large number (n = 388) of autopsy data from children by regression analysis revealed a best fit for two formulas: "Formula 1," children 0 to ≤1 year (n = 246): standard liver volume [ml] = -143.062973 +4.274603051 * body length [cm] + 14.78817631 * body weight [kg]; "Formula 2," children >1 to <16 years (n = 142): standard liver volume [ml] = -20.2472281 + 3.339056437 * body length [cm] + 13.11312561 * body weight [kg]. In comparison with children receiving size-matched organs, we found an elevated risk of liver graft failure in children transplanted with a small-for-size graft, whereas large-for-size organs seem to have no negative impact.

Evaluation of standard liver volume formulas by right liver living donor liver transplantation / 中华普通外科杂志

Objective To evaluate the suitability of reported standard liver volume formulae for Chinese adults based on the practice of 216 cases of living donor liver transplantation in our transplantation center. Methods The graft volume was preoperatively estimated in 179 adult-to-adult right liver living donors by two methods: first, the radiological right liver volume by computed tomography (CT) and second,calculated graft volume obtained by reported standard liver volume formula and the percentage of the right liver volume ( given by CT). Both results were compared to the actual graft volume measured during surgery.Results The mean percentage of right liver volume was 55.4% (SD 5.41%). The results of Urata、Heinemann、Vauthey、 Lee、 Yoshizumi formula were significantly larger than the actual right liver volume (P ＜0. 01 ). The result of Sheung-tat Fan was less than the actual right liver volume, there was statistical ESLV =334. 024 + 11. 508 × BW, is most suitable to estimate adult Chinese donor's right liver volume.