Title
Future remnant liver function estimated by combining liver volumetry on magnetic resonance imaging with total liver function on <tex>$^{99m}Tc$</tex>-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy : can this tool predict post-hepatectomy liver failure? Future remnant liver function estimated by combining liver volumetry on magnetic resonance imaging with total liver function on <tex>$^{99m}Tc$</tex>-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy : can this tool predict post-hepatectomy liver failure?
Author
Faculty/Department
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
Publication type
article
Publication
Basingstoke ,
Subject
Human medicine
Source (journal)
HPB / International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association. - Basingstoke
Volume/pages
18(2016) :6 , p. 494-503
ISSN
1365-182X
ISI
000379638400002
Carrier
E
Target language
English (eng)
Full text (Publishers DOI)
Affiliation
University of Antwerp
Abstract
Introduction: Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is a major complication after hepatectomy with a high mortality rate and is likely to happen in insufficient liver remnant. We hypothesize that assessment of the estimated future liver remnant function (eFLRF), combining future remnant liver volume (FLRV) with total liver function (TLF), is an accurate formula for prediction of PHLF. Methods: 88 patients undergoing hepatectomy were included. The ratio of the future liver remnant volume (FLRV%) was measured on MRI. TLF was estimated by liver clearance of (99m)Technetium (Tc)-mebrofenin on hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HBS). eFLRF was calculated by multiplying FLRV% by TLF. Cut-off values of FLRV% and eFLRF predicting PHLF, were defined by receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: PHLF occurred in 12 patients (13%). Perioperative mortality was 5/12 (41%). Multivariate analysis showed that FLRV% cut off at 40% was not an independent predictive factor. eFLRF cut off at 2.3%/min/m(2) was the only independent predictive factor for PHLF. For FLRV% vs. eFLRF, positive predictive value was 41 % vs. 92% and Odds Ratio 26 vs. 836. Conclusion: FRLF measured by combining FLRV% and TLF is a more valuable tool to predict PHLF than FLRV% alone. The cutoff of eFLRF can be used in clinical decision making.
E-info
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000379638400002&DestLinkType=RelatedRecords&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000379638400002&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/iruaauth/3b215b/134978.pdf
Handle