ReviewSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2022
A comprehensive study and extensive review of morphological variations of liver with new insights.
Review in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A comparative study of gross anatomical variations in human cadaveric specimens.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Torsion of a pedunculated accessory hepatic lobe: Cross-sectional imaging and histopathological correlation.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2026Article
- A 42-Year-Old Woman with Recurrent Pancreatitis Associated with Gallstones and Phrygian Cap Gallbladder.The American journal of case reports · 2024Article
- Liver surface depressions in the presence of diaphragmatic muscular bands on trans-illumination.World journal of experimental medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLiver is divided into four anatomical lobes presenting minor fissures and invisible major fissures. The prevalence of Accessory Fissures in liver ranges widely from 6 to 94%. The morphometric analysis of individual lobes is also scarce in literature. There have been instances where the surgeon has experienced some of these variations as a surprise during surgery as the existing data on the surface variations of liver is still contradictory. A sound knowledge of these variations would aid the surgeons and radiologists to circumvent the misdiagnosis and complications during surgeries.
methodsThe study was conducted in 93 cadaveric livers. Minor liver fissures, Accessory fissures and lobes were noted and measured. The livers were classified according to the Netter's classification. The morphology of caudate and quadrate lobes was studied. Any other variations in the appearance of groove for Inferior vena cava, gall bladder and its fossa were also studied. The results are tabulated.
resultsThe study revealed several variations in the morphological features of liver. Accessory fissures were noted in 51.61% of livers, distributed on various liver surfaces. Accessory lobes were noted in 27.9%. Pons hepatis was present in 22.5%. Gall bladder variations that were noted include the Hartmann's pouch (n = 14; 15.05%) and the Phrygian cap (n = 2; 2.15%). 65.6% livers (n = 61) had the sulcus of the caudate process or fissure of Gans or Rouviere sulcus which is a normal fissure present in majority of normal healthy livers.
conclusionThe current study provides a complete understanding and a thorough knowledge of surface morphological variations in liver. We hope that this will be greatly helpful for surgeons and radiologists to avoid possible errors in interpretations, to plan appropriately and assist during liver surgeries and to do radiological interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.