Study Of The Difference Between Liver Image Credits Leaf And Actual Anatomical Leaf

Objective:Measurement of liver volume has many clinical applications. It has importantapplication values in the prediction of acute liver failure, chronic liver cirrhosisprognosis, determining of the liver reserve function, and liver transplantation operationscheme and prognosis assessment. In recent years with development of the liver loberesection operation of the malignant tumors, the liver internal morphology, vascularwalking and the hepatic segment size needs more precise imaging information forpreoperative evaluation.This study aimed to learn through clinical imaging of the lobeof the liver volume analysis and liver consecutive faults specimens generally estimates,make a research of difference between the imaging science and practical anatomysegments for the hepatic segments. And to investigate the current imaging of the liveron partitioning of insufficient. The results of this investigation will provide detailedinformation for the growing development of liver surgery.Methods:1.155volunteers without significant liver disease through the upper abdominalMSCT examination were selected in this study. The volunteers were injected contrastagent and then took portal vein and hepatic vein during continuous scans of the liver.And then they got the Axial Couinaud liver sectional imaging with5mm thickness.Through the Couinaud liver segments, each layer of the image was divided into the leftlateral lobe, left medial lobe, caudate lobe, right anterior lobe, right posterior lobe. Thearea of each lobe of the liver was calculate by AW4.4processing workstation line tool.and then the volume of each lobe of the liver and the numerical distribution of imagingthe liver and its leaf volume were calculated through the SPSS statistical software.2.5cases of fresh liver segment were perfused, fixed piecewise separation afterliver slice processing,3mm in thickness. The actual size of each layer of each segment were calculated according to the different colors. The actual segmental anatomyartificial in the hepatic segments volume and total liver volume were calculated also.3.The differences of volume percentage between the images of155liver and5cases of segmental perfusion liver were compared by using SPSS statistical software.Results:1. In155cases of MSCT on liver volume measurement is as follows: Total livervolume:1246.29±231.82cm~3,Caudate lobe:18.45±7.99cm~3, left lateral lobe:229.18±73.39cm~3,Left medial lobe:214.89±56.78cm~3,Right anterior lobe:507.06±121.39cm~3,Right posterior lobe:276.72±76.83cm~3.The percentage of caudate lobe, left lateral lobe,left lobe, right anterior lobe in total liver were1.43%,18.35%,17.19%,40.56%,22.35%,respectively.2. Segment color liver horizontal slices liver segment measurement. On thepiecewise separation liver horizontal slices, the percentage of total liver of the caudatelobe,left lateral lobe,left lobe,right anterior lobe,were2.81%,18.66%,13.97%,37.18%,27.39%, respectively.3. Statistical analysis between Imaging measurement and fault specimen measured:The head end level, about (20.19+3.18)%theory on hepatic segments and the actualhepatic segmental distribution area does not match each other. In the hepatic portal veinbranch level, about (24.71+4.52)%theory on hepatic segments and the actual hepaticsegmental distribution area does not match each other. In the hepatic portal vein rightbranch level, about (32.58+8.91)%theory on hepatic segments and the actual hepaticsegmental distribution area without anastomosis. In the caudal level, about the (31.04+5.06)%theory on hepatic segments and the actual hepatic segmental distribution area ofanastomosis. The average no-matching rate in all four leverls wer approximately (27.13+4.68)%.In the segmented dichroic liver horizontal slices, the actual boundary of hepaticsegments is not a simple line or plane, but a similar curve relationship. The actualhepatic segment boundaries and the line between vein is not consistent. Median cleftposition is slants apparently left, oblique angle of approximately20°±4°to the middlehepatic vein trunk position. The head end section, right lobe intercellular cleft positionis obviously right to the right hepatic vein trunk position. The oblique angle isapproximately41°±5°. At the tail end section, right lobe intercellular cleft positionslants apparently left to the right hepatic vein trunk position, and with great variance.The deflection angle is approximately in0-90°. Conclusion:1. There is a difference between the imaging on hepatic segmental volumepercentage and actual segmental anatomy by hepatic segmental volume percentage. Theimaging on hepatic segment does not conform to the actual situation.2. In cross section, about (27.13+4.68)%of the area was designated in the wrongliver segment.3. The actual boundary of hepatic segments is not a simple line or plane, but asimilar curve relationship between hepatic segments. The actual boundaries are notconsistent with the walking vein.