Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2016 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2

Volume change of segments II and III of the liver after gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer

Pages
109–115
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Volume reduction had poor correlation with time.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:We aimed to evaluate the relationship between gastrectomy and the volume of liver segments II and III in patients with gastric cancer.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODS Computed tomography images of 54 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma were retrospectively evaluated by two blinded observers.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Volume reduction had poor correlation with time.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

We aimed to evaluate the relationship between gastrectomy and the volume of liver segments II and III in patients with gastric cancer. METHODS Computed tomography images of 54 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma were retrospectively evaluated by two blinded observers. Volumes of the total liver and segments II and III were measured. The difference between preoperative and postoperative volume measurements was compared. RESULTS Total liver volumes measured by both observers in the preoperative and postoperative scans were similar (P > 0.05). High correlation was found between both observers (preoperative r=0.99; postoperative r=0.98). Total liver volumes showed a mean reduction of 13.4% after gastrectomy (P = 0.977). The mean volume of segments II and III showed similar decrease in measurements of both observers (38.4% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.363); the correlation between the observers were high (preoperative r=0.97, P < 0.001; postoperative r=0.99, P < 0.001). Volume decrease in the rest of the liver was not different between the observers (8.2% vs. 9.1%, P = 0.388). Time had poor correlation with volume change of segments II and III and the total liver for each observer (observer 1, rseg2/3=0.32, rtotal=0.13; observer 2, rseg2/3=0.37, rtotal=0.16). CONCLUSION Segments II and III of the liver showed significant atrophy compared with the rest of the liver and the total liver after gastrectomy. Volume reduction had poor correlation with time.

🔖

Cite This Article

OZUTEMİZ, C., OBUZ, F., TAYLAN, A., ATİLA, K., BORA, S., ELLİDOKUZ, H. (2016). Volume change of segments II and III of the liver after gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2, 109–115. https://ajindex.com/articles/199074

References (4)

  1. Stomach cancer. Estimated incidence, mor- tality and prevalence worldwide in 2012: In- ternational Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. Available at http:// globocan.iarc.fr/old/FactSheets/cancers/stom- ach-new.asp. Accessed May 31, 2015.
  2. Demir G, Unsal D, Zengin N, et al. Analysis of resected gastric cancer in Turkish population. Hepatogastroenterology 2014; 61:259-266.
  3. Hallinan JT, Venkatesh SK. Gastric carcinoma: imaging diagnosis, staging and assessment of treatment response. Cancer Imaging 2013; 13:212-227. [CrossRef] Jeong GA, Cho GS, Shin EJ, Lee MS, Kim HC, Song OP. Liver function alterations after lapa- roscopy-assisted gastrectomy for gastric can- cer and its clinical significance. World J Gastro- enterol 2011; 17:372-378. [CrossRef] Yoon HM, Yang HK, Lee HJ, et al. Comparison of liver function after laparoscopically assisted and open distal gastrectomies for patients with liver disease. Surg Endosc 2011; 25:1761-1765. [CrossRef] Lyall A, Ulaner GA. False-positive FDG PET/CT due to liver parenchymal injury caused by a surgical retractor. Clin Nucl Med 2012; 37:910- [CrossRef] Tamhankar AP, Kelty CJ, Jacob G. Retraction-re- lated liver lobe necrosis after laparoscopic gastric surgery. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 2011; 15:117-121. [CrossRef] Yassa NA, Peters JH. CT of focal hepatic inju- ry due to surgical retractor. Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166:599-602. [CrossRef] Orr KE, Williams MP. MDCT of retractor-related hepatic injury following laparoscopic surgery: appearances, incidence, and follow-up. Clin Ra- diol 2014; 69:606-610. [CrossRef] Harikrishnan J, Jackson P, Patel R, Najmaldin A. Segmental liver atrophy: a complication of the Nathanson retractor. JSM Clin Case Rep 2014; 2:1012-1013.
  4. Kondrup J, Rasmussen HH, Hamberg O, Stanga Z. Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002): a new method based on an analysis of controlled clini- cal trials. Clin Nutr 2003; 22:321-336. [CrossRef] Hermoye L, Laamari-Azjal I, Cao Z, et al. Liver seg- mentation in living liver transplant donors: com- parison of semiautomatic and manual methods. Radiology 2005; 234:171-178. [CrossRef] Suzuki K, Epstein ML, Kohlbrenner R, et al. Quantitative radiology: automated CT liver vol- umetry compared with interactive volumetry and manual volumetry. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197:706-712. [CrossRef] Couinaud C. Liver anatomy: portal (and supra- hepatic) or biliary segmentation. Digest Surg 1999; 16:459-467. [CrossRef] Kitagawa T, Iriyama K. Hepatic infarction as a com- plica