↓ Skip to main content

PREOPERATIVE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY VOLUMETRY AND GRAFT WEIGHT ESTIMATION IN ADULT LIVING DONOR LIVER TRANSPLANTATION

Overview of attention for article published in ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo), January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
PREOPERATIVE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY VOLUMETRY AND GRAFT WEIGHT ESTIMATION IN ADULT LIVING DONOR LIVER TRANSPLANTATION
Published in
ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo), January 2017
DOI 10.1590/0102-6720201700010011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rafael S Pinheiro, Ruy J Cruz, Wellington Andraus, Liliana Ducatti, Rodrigo B Martino, Lucas S Nacif, Vinicius Rocha-Santos, Rubens M Arantes, Quirino Lai, Felicia S Ibuki, Manoel S Rocha, Luiz A C D Albuquerque

Abstract

Computed tomography volumetry (CTV) is a useful tool for predicting graft weights (GW) for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Few studies have examined the correlation between CTV and GW in normal liver parenchyma. To analyze the correlation between CTV and GW in an adult LDLT population and provide a systematic review of the existing mathematical models to calculate partial liver graft weight. Between January 2009 and January 2013, 28 consecutive donors undergoing right hepatectomy for LDLT were retrospectively reviewed. All grafts were perfused with HTK solution. Estimated graft volume was estimated by CTV and these values were compared to the actual graft weight, which was measured after liver harvesting and perfusion. Median actual GW was 782.5 g, averaged 791.43±136 g and ranged from 520-1185 g. Median estimated graft volume was 927.5 ml, averaged 944.86±200.74 ml and ranged from 600-1477 ml. Linear regression of estimated graft volume and actual GW was significantly linear (GW=0.82 estimated graft volume, r2=0.98, slope=0.47, standard deviation of 0.024 and p<0.0001). Spearman Linear correlation was 0.65 with 95% CI of 0.45 - 0.99 (p<0.0001). The one-to-one rule did not applied in patients with normal liver parenchyma. A better estimation of graft weight could be reached by multiplying estimated graft volume by 0.82. A volumetria por tomografia computadorizada (VTC) é uma ferramenta útil para a previsão do peso do enxerto (PE) para o transplante hepático com doador vivo (TFDV). Poucos estudos examinaram a correlação entre o VTC e PE no parênquima hepático normal. Analisar a correlação entre VTC e PE em uma população adulta de doadores para o TFDV e realização de revisão sistemática dos modelos matemáticos existentes para calcular o peso de enxertos hepáticos parciais. Foram revisados retrospectivamente 28 doadores consecutivos submetidos à hepatectomia direita para o TFDV entre janeiro de 2009 a janeiro de 2013. Todos os doadores eram adultos saudáveis ​​com VTC pré-operatório. Os enxertos foram perfundidos com solução de preservação HTK. O volume estimado foi obtido por VTC e estes valores foram comparados com o peso real do enxerto, o qual foi aferido depois da hepatectomia e perfusão do enxerto. A mediana do PE real foi de 782,5 g, média de 791,43±136 g, variando de 520-1185 g. A mediana do volume estimado do enxerto foi de 927,5 ml, média de 944,86±200,74 ml e variou de 600-1477 ml. A regressão linear volume estimado do enxerto e PE real foi significativamente linear (PE=0.82 do volume estimado do enxerto, r2=0,98, declive=0,47, desvio-padrão de 0,024 e p<0,0001). Correlação linear de Spearman foi de 0,65, com IC de 95% do 0,45-0,99 (p<0,0001). A regra de "um-para-um" não deve ser empregada em pacientes com parênquima hepático normal. A melhor estimativa do peso do enxerto hepático de doador vivo pode ser alcançado através da multiplicação do VTC por 0,82.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 15%
Other 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Unknown 7 54%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 38%
Unknown 8 62%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)
#101
of 291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,895
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)
#7
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 291 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.