Diagnostic accuracy of 3D imaging combined with intra-operative ultrasound in the prediction of post-hepatectomy liver failure.

Tianchong Wu, Wenhao Huang, Baochun He, Yuehua Guo, Gongzhe Peng, Mingyue Li, Shiyun Bao
Author Information
  1. Tianchong Wu: Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Shenzhen People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University; The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology), Shenzhen, China.
  2. Wenhao Huang: The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University (Shenzhen People's Hospital), Shenzhen, China.
  3. Baochun He: Research Lab for Medical Imaging and Digital Surgery, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
  4. Yuehua Guo: Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Shenzhen People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University; The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology), Shenzhen, China.
  5. Gongzhe Peng: Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Shenzhen People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University; The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology), Shenzhen, China.
  6. Mingyue Li: Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Shenzhen People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University; The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology), Shenzhen, China.
  7. Shiyun Bao: Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Shenzhen People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University; The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology), Shenzhen, China.

Abstract

Background: The risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is difficult to predict preoperatively. Accurate preoperative assessment of residual liver volume is critical in PHLF. Three-dimensional (3D) imaging and intra-operative ultrasound (IOUS) offer significant advantages in calculating liver volume and have been widely used in hepatectomy risk assessment. Our research aimed to explore the accuracy of 3D imaging technique combining IOUS in predicting PHLF after hepatectomy.
Methods: We used a retrospective study design to analyze patients who underwent hepatectomy with 3D imaging combined with IOUS between 2017 and 2020. Utilizing 3D reconstruction, the patient's residual liver volumes (PRLVs) and ratio of PRLV to standard liver volume (SLV) were calculated preoperatively. Hepatectomy were performed and actual hepatectomy volume (AHV) were measured. Consistency between preoperative planned hepatectomy volume (PPHV) and AHV was quantified postoperatively by Bland-Altman analysis. Multiple logistic regression and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were utilized to discuss the predictive value of PRLV/SLV in PHLF.
Results: Among the 214 included patients, 58 (27.1%) had PHLF. patients with PHLF had significantly higher residual rates of ICG-R15 (%) (P=0.000) and a lower PRLV/SLV ratio (P=0.000). Bland-Altman analysis showed that PPHV was consistent with AHV (P=0.301). Multivariate analysis confirmed that PRLV/SLV ratio >60% (OR, 0.178; 95% CI: 0.084-0.378; P<0.01) was a protective factor for PHLF. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were 75.8% (95% CI: 64.5.3-87.2%), 66.6% (95% CI: 59.1-74.1%), 45.8%, and 88.1%, respectively. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 73.7% (95% CI: 65.7-85.8%) and the diagnostic accuracy of PRLV/SLV for PHLF was moderate (P<0.001). These results were validated in the validation cohort perfectly. The primary cohort included 214 patients with a PHLF rate of 27.1% (n=58, 28 grade B and 13 grade C). The validation cohort included 135 patients with a PHLF rate of 35.6% (n=48, 24 grade B and 11 grade C).
Conclusions: The calculation of PRLV/SLV has predictive value in PHLF and can be exploited as a predictive factor. The 3D imaging technique combined with IOUS may be useful for PHLF risk assessment in hepatectomy patients.

Keywords

References

  1. Adv Surg. 2003;37:29-49 [PMID: 12953626]
  2. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016 Nov 08;17(6):118-127 [PMID: 27929487]
  3. BMC Surg. 2021 Jan 23;21(1):57 [PMID: 33485329]
  4. Hepatogastroenterology. 2007 Jan-Feb;54(73):234-7 [PMID: 17419267]
  5. HPB (Oxford). 2011 Sep;13(9):665-9 [PMID: 21843268]
  6. Ann Surg. 2013 Nov;258(5):801-6; discussion 806-7 [PMID: 24045451]
  7. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2020 Feb;98(2):62-71 [PMID: 32051814]
  8. Gut. 2005 Feb;54(2):289-96 [PMID: 15647196]
  9. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008 Jan;12(1):123-8 [PMID: 17924174]
  10. J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Aug;217(2):280-8 [PMID: 23870220]
  11. World J Surg. 2018 Mar;42(3):841-848 [PMID: 28879512]
  12. J Surg Res. 2014 May 15;188(2):489-95 [PMID: 24569034]
  13. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2012 Dec;397(8):1297-304 [PMID: 22729717]
  14. J Surg Oncol. 2018 Dec;118(7):1081-1087 [PMID: 30293249]
  15. Surgery. 2000 May;127(5):512-9 [PMID: 10819059]
  16. Liver Int. 2008 Jul;28(6):767-80 [PMID: 18647141]
  17. Hepatology. 1997 Nov;26(5):1176-81 [PMID: 9362359]
  18. J Am Coll Surg. 2015 Jan;220(1):28-37 [PMID: 25456781]
  19. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2010 Jul;17(4):385-8 [PMID: 19936599]
  20. Int J Surg Protoc. 2017 Aug 16;5:15-17 [PMID: 31851747]
  21. J Surg Oncol. 2014 Sep;110(4):445-50 [PMID: 24962104]
  22. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020 Aug;27(8):2868-2876 [PMID: 32103417]
  23. BMC Med Imaging. 2019 Feb 26;19(1):20 [PMID: 30808320]
  24. Hepatogastroenterology. 2012 Jun;59(116):1179-83 [PMID: 22580671]
  25. J Surg Oncol. 2018 Sep;118(3):440-445 [PMID: 30259515]
  26. Surgery. 2017 Apr;161(4):909-919 [PMID: 28038862]
  27. Ann Surg. 2014 Nov;260(5):829-36; discussion 836-8 [PMID: 25379854]
  28. Dig Surg. 2014;31(4-5):255-68 [PMID: 25322678]
  29. Surgery. 2011 May;149(5):713-24 [PMID: 21236455]
  30. Surg Oncol. 2017 Jun;26(2):188-194 [PMID: 28577725]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0PHLFliver3DhepatectomyimagingvolumeIOUSpatientspredictivePRLV/SLVvalue1%95%CI:graderiskpost-hepatectomyfailureassessmentresidualultrasoundaccuracytechniquecombinedratioAHVanalysisincludedP=08%cohortpreoperativelypreoperativeintra-operativeusedPPHVBland-AltmanROC214270000P<0factor6%validationrateBCBackground:difficultpredictAccuratecriticalThree-dimensionaloffersignificantadvantagescalculatingwidelyresearchaimedexplorecombiningpredictingMethods:retrospectivestudydesignanalyzeunderwent20172020Utilizingreconstructionpatient'svolumesPRLVsPRLVstandardSLVcalculatedHepatectomyperformedactualmeasuredConsistencyplannedquantifiedpostoperativelyMultiplelogisticregressionreceiver-operatingcharacteristiccurvesutilizeddiscussResults:Among58PatientssignificantlyhigherratesICG-R15%lowershowedconsistent301Multivariateconfirmed>60%OR178084-037801protectivesensitivityspecificitypositivePPVnegativeNPV756453-872%66591-744588respectivelyareacurveAUC737%657-85diagnosticmoderate001resultsvalidatedperfectlyprimaryn=58281313535n=482411Conclusions:calculationcanexploitedmayusefulDiagnosticpredictionintraoperative

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)