File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Validation of graft and standard liver size predictions in right liver living donor liver transplantation

TitleValidation of graft and standard liver size predictions in right liver living donor liver transplantation
Authors
KeywordsLiver transplantation
Living donor
Size
Standard
Issue Date2011
PublisherSpringer New York LLC. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.springer.com/west/home/medicine?SGWID=4-10054-70-173733513-0
Citation
Hepatology International, 2011, v. 5 n. 4, p. 913-917 How to Cite?
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the accuracy of a formula derived from 159 living liver donors to estimate the liver size of a normal subject: standard liver weight (g) = 218 + body weight (kg) × 12.3 + 51 (if male). Standard liver volume (SLV) is attained by a conversion factor of 1.19 mL/g. Methods: The total liver volume (TLV) of each of the subsequent consecutive 126 living liver donors was determined using the right liver graft weight (RGW) on the back table, right/left liver volume ratio on computed tomography, and the conversion factor. The estimated right liver graft weight (ERGW) was determined by the right liver volume on computed tomography (CT) and the conversion factor. SLV and ERGW were compared with TLV and RGW, respectively, by paired sample t test. Results: Donor characteristics of both series were similar. SLV and TLV were 1,099.6 ± 139.6 and 1,108.5 ± 175.2 mL, respectively, (R 2 = 0.476) (p = 0.435). The difference between SLV and TLV was only -8.9 ± 128.2 mL (-1.0 ± 11.7%). ERGW and RGW were 601.5 ± 104.1 and 597.1 ± 102.2 g, respectively (R 2 = 0.781) (p = 0.332). The conversion factor from liver weight to volume for this series was 1.20 mL/g. The difference between ERGW and RGW was 4.3 ± 49.8 g (0.3 ± 8.8%). ERGW was smaller than RGW for over 10% (range 0.21-40.66 g) in 18 of the 126 donors. None had the underestimation of RGW by over 20%. Conclusion: SLV and graft weight estimations were accurate using the formula and conversion factor. © 2011 The Author(s).
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/135538
ISSN
2013 Impact Factor: 2.468
PubMed Central ID
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

Author Affiliations
  1. The University of Hong Kong
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChan, SCen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLo, CMen_HK
dc.contributor.authorChok, KSHen_HK
dc.contributor.authorSharr, WWen_HK
dc.contributor.authorCheung, TTen_HK
dc.contributor.authorTsang, SHYen_HK
dc.contributor.authorChan, ACYen_HK
dc.contributor.authorFan, STen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2011-07-27T01:36:42Z-
dc.date.available2011-07-27T01:36:42Z-
dc.date.issued2011en_HK
dc.identifier.citationHepatology International, 2011, v. 5 n. 4, p. 913-917en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1936-0533en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/135538-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To assess the accuracy of a formula derived from 159 living liver donors to estimate the liver size of a normal subject: standard liver weight (g) = 218 + body weight (kg) × 12.3 + 51 (if male). Standard liver volume (SLV) is attained by a conversion factor of 1.19 mL/g. Methods: The total liver volume (TLV) of each of the subsequent consecutive 126 living liver donors was determined using the right liver graft weight (RGW) on the back table, right/left liver volume ratio on computed tomography, and the conversion factor. The estimated right liver graft weight (ERGW) was determined by the right liver volume on computed tomography (CT) and the conversion factor. SLV and ERGW were compared with TLV and RGW, respectively, by paired sample t test. Results: Donor characteristics of both series were similar. SLV and TLV were 1,099.6 ± 139.6 and 1,108.5 ± 175.2 mL, respectively, (R 2 = 0.476) (p = 0.435). The difference between SLV and TLV was only -8.9 ± 128.2 mL (-1.0 ± 11.7%). ERGW and RGW were 601.5 ± 104.1 and 597.1 ± 102.2 g, respectively (R 2 = 0.781) (p = 0.332). The conversion factor from liver weight to volume for this series was 1.20 mL/g. The difference between ERGW and RGW was 4.3 ± 49.8 g (0.3 ± 8.8%). ERGW was smaller than RGW for over 10% (range 0.21-40.66 g) in 18 of the 126 donors. None had the underestimation of RGW by over 20%. Conclusion: SLV and graft weight estimations were accurate using the formula and conversion factor. © 2011 The Author(s).en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherSpringer New York LLC. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.springer.com/west/home/medicine?SGWID=4-10054-70-173733513-0en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofHepatology Internationalen_HK
dc.rightsThe Author(s)en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong Licenseen_US
dc.subjectLiver transplantationen_HK
dc.subjectLiving donoren_HK
dc.subjectSizeen_HK
dc.subjectStandarden_HK
dc.titleValidation of graft and standard liver size predictions in right liver living donor liver transplantationen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=1936-0533&volume=&spage=&epage=&date=2011&atitle=Validation+of+graft+and+standard+liver+size+predictions+in+right+liver+living+donor+liver+transplantation-
dc.identifier.emailChan, SC: chanlsc@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailLo, CM: chungmlo@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailChan, ACY: acchan@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailFan, ST: stfan@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityChan, SC=rp01568en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLo, CM=rp00412en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityChan, ACY=rp00310en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityFan, ST=rp00355en_HK
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_versionen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s12072-011-9264-0en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid21484120-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC3215865-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-81855185263en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros187623en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-81855185263&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume5en_HK
dc.identifier.issue4en_HK
dc.identifier.spage913en_HK
dc.identifier.epage917en_HK
dc.identifier.eissn1936-0541en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000297133500008-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.description.otherSpringer Open Choice, 21 Feb 2012en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChan, SC=7404255575en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLo, CM=7401771672en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChok, KSH=6508229426en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSharr, WW=36864499000en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCheung, TT=7103334165en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTsang, SHY=7102255986en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChan, ACY=15828849100en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridFan, ST=7402678224en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike9119539-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats