Liver volumetric and anatomic assessment in living donor liver transplantation: The role of modern imaging and artificial intelligence

Table 1 Formulas to estimate liver volumetry by computerized tomography

Ref.	Formula	Research place
Poovathumkadavil et al[22], 2010	LV = 12.26 × BW(kg) + 555.65	Saudi Arabia
Noda et al[21], 1997	LV = 0.05012 × BW0.78	Japan
Johnson et al[20], 2005	LV = 0.722 × BSA1.176	North America
Yuan et al[24], 2008	LV = 949.7 × BSA (m2) - 48.3 × age - 247.4	China
Yoshizumi et al[23], 2003	LV = (0.772 × BSA)/1.08	North America

LV: Liver volume; BW: Body weight; BSA: Body surface area.

Table 2 Results of semi-automated image processing in different analysis

Ref.	Software and comparison	Reports
Pomposelli et al[47], 2012	Software MeVis	A nonsignificant volume difference of approximately 17.5 mL and a low percentage error of approximately 2.8%
	Compared right lobe graft volumes estimated by SAIP with actual graft weights measured during LDLT
Çelik et al[34], 2023	CT Liver Analysis, Philips Healthcare-RLDG volumes by manual and SA were compared to AGW	Both manual and SA overestimated the graft weight (manual: 893 ± 155 mL vs AGW: 787 ± 128 g, P < 0.001, SA: 879 ± 143 mL vs AGW, P < 0.001). The mean interaction time was 27.3 ± 14.2 min for manual and 6.8 ± 1.4 min for SAIP (P < 0.001)
Mohapatra et al[31], 2020	Myrian XP Liver 3D software (France)-RLDG, LLDG and LLSDG volumes by manual and SA were compared to AGW	Both manual and SA showed strong correlation with AGW (r = 0.834 and 0.856, respectively). The mean percentage error for manual and SA was 14.2 ± 12.5% and 12.2 ± 11.8%, respectively. The overall accuracy improved using SA (P = 0.015)
Kalshabay et al[25], 2023	Vitrea software, including two different applications for manual segmentation (Volume analysis) and automated segmentation (CT liver analysis)	The manual method correlated better with AGW (r = 0.730) in comparison with the SA (r = 0.685) and the automated (r = 0.699) methods (P < 0.001). The mean error ratio in volume estimation by each application was 12.7 ± 16.6% for manual, 17.1 ± 17.3% for SA, 14.7 ± 16.8% for automated methods
	SA software (OsiriX MD)
	RLDG
Goja et al[39], 2018	AW Volume share 6 (GE Healthcare; Chicago, Illinois, United States)	RLDGt: There was no statistically significant difference between mean SA and AGW in RL (722 ± 134 vs 717 ± 126 gm; P = 0.06). LLDG: Correlated strongly (r = 0.81, P < 0.001), mean SA was significantly high as compared to mean of AGW (460 ± 118 vs 433 ± 102 gm; P = 0.003). LLSDG: Mean SA was significantly low as compared to mean of AGW (203 ± 48 vs 254 ± 49 gm; P < 0.001)
	RLDG, LLDG and LLSDG volumes by SA were compared to AGW

CT: Computerized tomography; SA: Semi-automated; AGW: Actual graft weight, RLDG: Right lobe donor graft; LLDG: Left lobe donor graft; LLSDG: Left lateral segment donor graft.