Standard Formula for Liver Volume in Middle Eastern Arabic Adults

• Published in: Transplantation proceedings Vol. 42; no. 9; pp. 3600 - 3605
• Main Authors: Poovathumkadavil, A, Leung, K.F, Al Ghamdi, H.M, El Hassan Othman, I, Meshikhes, A.-W
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Amsterdam Elsevier Inc 01-11-2010; Elsevier
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Arabs; Biological and medical sciences; Body Surface Area; Body Weight; Female; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Fundamental immunology; Humans; Linear Models; Liver - diagnostic imaging; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Models, Biological; Organ Size; Prospective Studies; Saudi Arabia; Surgery; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases; Tissue, organ and graft immunology; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Young Adult; Asia; Middle east; Human; Medicine; Arabic; Treatment; Digestive system; Volume; Surgery; Liver; Adult; Graft; Transplantation; Standards
• ISSN: 0041-1345; 1873-2623
• DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2010.07.098

Abstract Objectives To determine a formula for estimating the standard liver volume (SLV) in Middle Eastern Arabic adults and to compare it with the 12 standard liver volume (SLV) formulas reported for eastern and western populations. Methods Liver volume measured using computed tomography (CTLV) was determined in 351 Saudi Arabian adults older than 16 years without liver or body build abnormality. This measurement was correlated with body indices including age, sex, height, weight, body mass index, and body surface area to derive a new formula using multiple-step linear regression analysis. The CTLV was compared with the 12 SLV formulas using the t test, with error % as (SLV − CTLV)/CTLV × 100. Results Body weight was the only significant factor that correlated with CTLV, that is, 12.26 × body weight (kg) + 555.65 ( R2 = .37; P = .000). Only the Vauthey formula (1267.28 × body surface area (m2 ) − 794.41) yielded an estimation of SLV that did not differ significantly from CTLV ( P = .26), and had the least mean % error of +1% (underestimation by 15.7 mL) and the closest agreement, that is, 62.4% demonstrated less than ±16% error). Other formulas also yielded acceptable agreement with mean % error less than 12%, although the differences from actual measurements were statistically significant. The Chengdu and Chouker formulas were the exceptions, with more than 16% underestimation or overestimation. Conclusions Either the formulas derived in the present study and the Vauthey formula could be used to estimate SLV in Middle East Arabic adults. However, the moderate coefficient of determination ( R2 = .37) suggested wide interindividual variation. Caution must be exercised when using these formulas in preoperative planning.