Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32025161›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental hepatology

Three-Dimensional Volumetric Assessment of Graft Volume in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Does It Minimise Errors of Estimation?

Nihar Mohapatra, Kishore Gurumoorthy Subramanya Bharathy, Piyush Kumar Sinha, Shridhar Vasantrao Sasturkar, Yashwant Patidar, Viniyendra Pamecha

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and experimental hepatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nihar MohapatraDepartment of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences New Delhi, 70, India.
Kishore Gurumoorthy Subramanya BharathyDepartment of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences New Delhi, 70, India.
Piyush Kumar SinhaDepartment of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences New Delhi, 70, India.
Shridhar Vasantrao SasturkarDepartment of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences New Delhi, 70, India.
Yashwant PatidarDepartment of Radiology Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences New Delhi, 70, India.
Viniyendra PamechaDepartment of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences New Delhi, 70, India.
Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate volumetric assessment of graft and remnant liver is essential in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for optimal clinical outcome in both donors and recipients. Recently, three-dimensional (3D) volumetry is proposed over conventional computed tomography (CT) volumetry to minimise errors. The aim of this study is to assess the correlation of estimated graft volume (EGV) by both the methods with actual graft weight (AGW).

methodsOne hundred fifty-four consecutive donors were enrolled prospectively. Conventional CT volumetry (semiautomatic) and 3D volumetry were performed using Myrian software. Total liver volume (TLV), EGV, and remnant liver volume (RLV) were assessed using both methods and correlated with intraoperatively measured AGW as the reference standard. Error of estimation was calculated accordingly.

resultsOne hundred eighteen donors underwent right hepatectomy excluding middle hepatic vein (MHV), twenty-nine donors had left hepatectomy including MHV and six donors underwent left lateral sectionectomy. The median EGV on CT and 3D volumetry was 628.5 ml (140-1300) and 634.5 ml (156-1349), respectively. The median AGW was 647 gm (200-1004). Both CT and 3D volumetry showed strong correlation with AGW (correlation coefficients: 0.834 and 0.856, respectively). Linear correlation is as follows: (a) AGW = 99.75 + 0.818 × EGV (CT) and (b) AGW = 96.03 + 0.835 × EGV (3D). The mean percentage error for CT and 3D volumetry was 14.2 ± 12.5% and 12.2 ± 11.8%, respectively. The overall accuracy of estimation of EGV improved using 3D software (

conclusionBoth conventional CT and 3D volumetric methods strongly correlate with AGW in donors of LDLT, whereas overall accuracy of estimation of graft weight improved marginally by 3D volumetry.

Indexed as

3D volumetry, three-dimensional volumetryactual graft weightAGW, actual graft weightCT volumetry, computed tomography volumetrydonor hepatectomyEGV, estimated graft volumeestimated graft volumeGRWR, graft/recipient weight ratioLDLT, living donor liver transplantationliving donor liver transplantationMHV, middle hepatic veinMIP, maximal intensity projectionRLV, remnant liver volumethree-dimensional volumetryTLV, total liver volume

Identifiers

PMID32025161
PMCPMC6995882
OpenAlexW2922721483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.