ArticleHPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association2024
Reproducibility and efficiency of liver volumetry using manual method and liver analysis software.
Article in HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the reliability of three software programmes for manual and (semi-)automatic volumetry in healthy livers.World journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Liver volumetry software: a narrative review of technical performance and clinical utility.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Seeing the invisible: Three-dimensional liver modeling from simulation to the scalpel.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor liver volumetry, manual tracing on computed tomography (CT) images is time-consuming and operator dependent. To overcome these disadvantages, several three-dimensional simulation software programs have been developed; however, their efficacy has not fully been evaluated.
methodsThree physicians performed liver volumetry on preoperative CT images on 30 patients who underwent formal right hepatectomy, using manual tracing volumetry and two simulation software programs, SYNAPSE and syngo.via. The future liver remnant (FLR) was calculated using each method of volumetry. The primary endpoint was reproducibility and secondary outcomes were calculation time and learning curve.
resultsThe mean FLR was significantly lower for manual volumetry than for SYNAPSE or syngo.via; there was no significant difference in mean FLR between the two software-based methods. Reproducibility was lower for the manual method than for the software-based methods. Mean calculation time was shortest for SYNAPSE. For the two physicians unfamiliar with the software, no obvious learning curve was observed for using SYNAPSE, whereas learning curves were observed for using syngo.via.
conclusionsLiver volumetry was more reproducible and faster with three-dimensional simulation software, especially SYNAPSE software, than with the conventional manual tracing method. Software can help even inexperienced physicians learn quickly how to perform liver volumetry.
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.