ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2025
Optimizing accuracy: a comparative analysis of preoperative liver volumetry in living donor liver transplantation from a surgeon's perspective - a retrospective cohort study.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Precision of computed tomography volumetry in living donor liver transplantation: current evidence, limitations, and future directions.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate preoperative graft volume assessment is fundamental to the success of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Although manual and automated computed tomography (CT) volume measurement methods using various volumetric tools are widely used, their accuracy remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare various CT-based volumetric measurement methods for predicting actual graft weight (AGW) in LDLT and to identify specific dry weight correction factors for each method to improve clinical reliability. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective diagnostic accuracy study was performed on 109 patients who underwent LDLT between 2011 and 2024. Right liver volume was measured using automated (Philips Healthcare software), semi-automated (AnyVol software), and manual volumetry (PetaVision for clinics) methods. The optimal dry weight correction factor was calculated for each method.
resultsThe optimal dry weight correction factors were 0.89 for the automated method, 0.82 for the semi-automated method, and 0.88 for the manual method. After applying these correction factors, the semi-automated method yielded the highest coefficient of determination ( R2 = 0.687, standard error [SE] = 91.939). The error ratio decreased significantly: from 11.30% ± 14.59% to -0.93% ± 12.98% for the automated method, from 20.51% ± 15.65% to -1.18% ± 12.83% for the semi-automated method, and from 11.89% ± 14.67% to -1.53% ± 12.91% for the manual method.
conclusionsAccurate prediction of AGW depends on applying optimal correction factors specific to each measurement method. All three methods showed high accuracy with the semi-automated method demonstrating the highest R2 and lowest SE, while the automated method exhibited the lowest error ratio. These findings support the use of cost-effective, software-based volumetry with tailored correction factors to improve donor safety and graft outcomes.
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.