64层CT三维重建对肝脏手术术前评估及虚拟手术对手术方案和术中策略影响的临床研究
|
摘要
第一部分64-MSCT三维重建对肝脏血管的解剖性研究
目的
1.通过64-MSCT肝脏三期扫描,应用三维重建技术对肝动脉、肝静脉和门静脉血管成像,分析三者在肝内的分布结构和不同变异类型;
2.探讨肝内血管解剖结构及其变异对肝脏分段、肝脏肿瘤切除术、肝脏移植术和介入手术指导意义。
材料与方法
按一定纳入标准收集了苏州大学附属第一医院2008年1月~2008年6月期间行上腹部64-MSCT增强扫描的60例检查者作为研究对象,其中男37例,女23例,平均年龄49岁。全部检查者都应用64-MSCT(Somatom Sensation 64,Siemens)行平扫及三期增强扫描,将获得的扫描影像数据以1mm薄层重建后传至后期工作站。由2名影像科医生应用工作站软件对图像作以下处理:最大密度投影法(maximum intensity projection, MIP)、容积重建法(volume rendering, VR)、表面遮盖显示法(surface shadow display, SSD)及多轴向投影容积再现(multi-projection volumetric rendering, MPVR),将肝脏及内部血管三维重建。再有1名影像科医生和1名肝脏外科医生对三维重建的图像进行分析,根据肝内血管解剖分型的标准对肝动脉、肝静脉和门静脉进行解剖分型并记录所占比例。
结果
1. 60例检查者中肝动脉MichelsⅠ型(正常型)有47例(78.3%),其他13例(21.7%)存在肝动脉变异。其中MichelsⅡ型1例(1.7 %),Ⅲ型4例(6.7 %),Ⅴ型2例(3.3%),Ⅵ型3例(5.0%),Ⅷ型1例(1.7%),Ⅸ型1例(1.7 %),未发现Ⅳ型、Ⅶ型和Ⅹ型;另外还发现一例未被Michels分型包括在内的变异类型,无肝固有动脉,占1.7%。
2.门静脉分型中,Ⅰ型(正常型)有49例(81.7%),Ⅱ型7例(11.7%),Ⅲ型3例(5.0%),Ⅳ型1例(1.7%)。未发现特殊变异类型。
3.肝静脉分型中,绝大多数情况下(52/60,86.7%)肝右静脉单独汇入下腔静脉(Ⅰ型),而肝中、左静脉合干后汇入下腔静脉;少数(8/60,1.33 %)肝左、中、右静脉分别汇入下腔静脉(Ⅱ型)。并且,本组60例检查者中,共有14例(23.3%)显示肝右后下静脉(inferior right hepatic vein, IRHV)存在。根据Nakamura分型,肝静脉解剖结构变异Ⅰ型46例,占76.7%;Ⅱ型10例,占16.7%;Ⅲ型4例,占6.7%。
结论
1. 64-MSCT出现不但加快了数据采集的速度以及扫描完成后对获得的数据进行薄层重建,并可利用MIP、VR等后期软件处理技术可以对肝内血管系统在工作站进行三维重建成像,使高分辨率的CT血管成像(CTA)成为可能。相对于经典的DSA血管造影技术而言,这项技术不仅具有无创、操作简单等优点,而且可以从任意角度旋转来观察肝内血管及病变的情况。
2. 64-MSCT可以对肝内血管系统进行三维重建,从而对肝动脉、门静脉和肝静脉的解剖结构及变异进行研究,本组研究发现三者变异的发生率分别为21.7%、18.3%和23.3%。了解肝内血管系统的解剖结构及变异对肝段的重新定位及划分,对肝脏占位性病变的部分切除术、对肝脏肿瘤的介入手术、对肝脏移植术,尤其是活体肝移植术的术前判断及评估、手术方案的制定、手术的预后及并发症的早期发现和处理都有重要的意义。
第二部分肝脏体积测量在肝脏外科中的临床应用价值
目的
研究不同方法测量肝脏体积的可靠性和准确性,探讨64-MSCT测量肝脏体积对肝脏储备功能的评估及对预后判断的临床应用价值。
材料与方法
按一定纳入标准收集了苏州大学附属第一医院2008年1月~2009年12月期间50例行肝脏大部分切除术和6例行原位移植术的患者(男性42例,女性14例,平均年龄57岁)作为研究对象。56例患者术前都应用64-MSCT(Somatom Sensation 64,Siemens)行平扫及三期增强扫描,将获得的扫描影像数据1mm薄层重建后传至后期工作站。由1名影像科医生和1名肝脏外科医生分别应用64-MSCT自带后期处理软件(Leonardo, Siemens Medical Solutions, Malvern, Pennsylvania)、eFilm Workstation TM 2.1(Merge Healthcare)和Myrian○R XP-Liver医学影像分析系统(Intrasense○R , France)等三种不同方法测量肝脏体积,包括:全肝体积、肿瘤体积、功能肝体积、模拟切除肝体积和剩余肝体积,获得的结果分别与术后标本用排水法测得的实际体积进行比较,分析其相关性。记录患者的术前一般资料:年龄、性别、身高、体重、HbsAg和C-P分级等;术中资料:手术时间、术中失血量、肝门阻断时间、手术方式、剩余肝体积和残肝分数(%RLV)等;以及术后资料:肝功能、并发症情况等,应用单因素分析和Logistic多因素回归模型分析判断各种临床风险因素与术后发生肝功能障碍的影响,并应用受试者工作特性(ROC)曲线分析残肝分数对术后发生重度肝功能障碍的预测能力。
结果
1.三种方法(64-MSCT层切法、eFilm法和Myrian法)测量的全肝平均体积分别为:1355.9±806.8cm3,1438.9±344.7cm3和1450.4±354.2 cm3;模拟切除后预切除标本的平均体积分别为:754.9±326.8cm3,740.7±322.1cm3和753.6±330.1 cm3;而实际切除标本的平均质量为:718.30±327.15g,用排水法测量的平均体积为:729.3±332.4 cm3。前三者与后者体积的相关性比较,r=0.948,0.928和0.951(P<0.05);与后者质量的相关性比较,r=0.948, 0.927和0.945(<0.05);三种方法相互间相关性比较,r=0.995,0.986和0.980(<0.05)。说明三种方法测量的肝脏体积与实际体积呈高度正相关。
2.单因素分析显示术中失血量、剩余肝体积和残肝分数与术后肝功能损害程度相关,而年龄、性别、C-P分级、肿瘤大小、肝硬化程度、手术时间、肝门阻断时间等因素对术后发生肝功能损害的影响无统计学意义。Logistic多因素回归模型分析表明残肝分数(%RLV)是术后发生严重肝功能损害的独立预测因素。应用ROC曲线分析残肝分数预测术后发生严重肝功能损害的临界点是0.32(P<0.05)。
结论
1.三种工作站软件用于肝脏体积的测量,各有优劣。相比较而言, Myrian○R XP-Liver医学影像分析系统操作简单,高效,操作耗时短,获得的图像直观立体,测量数据准确,并且可在个人电脑上安装,带入手术室操作,方便手术医生。
2.经不同工作站软件测量获得的肝脏体积与实际肝脏体积之间虽然存在着一定的差异,但是都与实际体积存在着固定的线性关系,呈高度正相关。因此可应用64-MSCT比较准确地测量肝脏体积从而对肝脏储备功能提供全面的评价。
3.肝脏大部分切除术后发生严重肝功能障碍与术中失血量、剩余肝体积和残肝分数等因素相关;残肝分数<0.32,术后发生严重肝功能障碍的危险性增加。因此,应用64-MSCT及后期工作站软件对肝脏体积的测量,可以有效预测术后肝功能损害发生的风险。
第三部分虚拟肝脏手术与辅助风险分析对肝脏大部分切除术手术方案与术中策略的影响
目的
探讨应用肝脏三维重建模型来进行虚拟肝脏手术,对实际手术方案的制定及术中策略的影响。
材料与方法
按一定纳入标准前瞻性地选择了苏州大学附属第一医院2009年1月~2009年12月期间行较复杂的肝大部分切除术患者22例,其中男17例,女5例,平均年龄47岁。所有患者术前都行64-MSCT三期薄层扫描,将获得的影像数据导入Myrian○R XP-Liver医学影像分析系统(Intrasense○R , France),选用门静脉后期的图像三维重建来进行虚拟肝脏手术切除。步骤一:图像分析及三维重建;步骤二:虚拟手术切除,测量计算各部分的体积;步骤三:预后风险分析,调整和制定手术方案。将虚拟手术制定的方案与实际手术操作和术后情况进行比较。
结果
1.应用Myrian○R XP-Liver医学影像分析系统获得的肝脏三维重建模型形象逼真,立体感强,肝脏形态、肿瘤的大小、位置和与周围血管的空间毗邻关系一目了然,并且可从多个角度进行观察分析。虚拟的图像与手术中实际所见匹配良好,达到理想的模拟效果。
2. 22例患者都施行了肝脏大部分切除术,其中20例完整切除肿瘤,达到R0切除,安全切缘距肿瘤边缘最小距离4mm~4cm,平均2.4cm;2例为R1切除,1例原发性肝癌切缘最小距离肿瘤<4mm,切缘阳性;另1例肝门部胆管癌,术后病理镜下证实胆管断端阳性。本组病例无手术死亡和住院期间死亡,出现严重肝功能障碍2例,均保守治疗后好转出院,其中1例术后三月由于上消化道出血死亡。
3.本组病例中有6例患者通过预后风险分析,计算剩余肝脏体积和残肝分数,分析剩余肝组织可能出现缺血/淤血的范围,认为术后肝功能障碍发生危险性增加,于是调整了切除范围,最大限度保留功能性肝组织,从而制定了合理的手术方案,影响了术中策略,取得良好的手术效果。
结论
应用Myrian○R XP-Liver医学影像分析系统进行肝脏三维重建及虚拟肝脏切除手术,可以为精确地安全地施行复杂的肝脏大部分切除术,最大限度减少术后肝功能障碍的发生,制定合理的手术方案和采取正确的术中策略提供重要的术前参考。
Part I Studies of anatomy of liver vascular with 64-MSCT three-dimensional reconstruction
Objective
To analyze the inner anatomical structure and variation of hepatic artery, vein and portal vein through hepatic angiography using three-dimensional reconstruction technique. To investigate the instructive significance for segmentation, liver tumor resection, liver transplantation and intervention for different vascular anatomical structure and variation.
Materials and Methods
Total 60 patients, who were performed upper abdominal examination using triple-phase contrast-enhancement 64-MSCT in the first affiliated hospital of Soochow university, were collected into this study in a period of 6 months, from Jan to Jun, 2008. All of the data sets were transfered to workstation after being reconstructed in 1-mm section and 1-mm interval. Two radiologists took the charge of dealing with the data sets for maximum intensity projection (MIP), volume rendering (VR), surface shadow display (SSD), multi-projection intensity rendering (MPVR) and angiography. Furthermore, analyzed by 1 radiologist and 1 surgeon majoring in liver surgery, the anatomical structure of hepatic artery, vein and portal vein were classified according to certain standards and the rates of variation were recorded.
Results
1. Among the 60 patients, there were 47 patients (78.3%) belonging to Michels type I (normal hepatic artery anatomy), and other 13 patients (21.7%) showing the existence of variation. They were typeⅡin 1 (1.7%), typeⅢin 4 (6.7%), typeⅤin 2 (3.3%), typeⅥin 3 (5.0%), both typeⅧand typeⅨin 1 (1.7%), and there was no typeⅩ,Ⅳ, andⅦ. However, a special variation type without proper hepatic artery was presented, which could not be included in the Michels Classification.
2. Normal portal vein anatomy (type I) was shown in 49 cases (81.7%), typeⅡin 7 (11.7%), typeⅢin 3 (5.0%) and typeⅣin 1 (1,7%). There was no special variation founded.
3. Most cases (52/60, 86.7%) of RHV drained into IVC alone (belonging to type I) , and MHC combined with LHV into IVC. Less cases (8/60, 1.33%) of these three hepatic vein drained into IVC respectively (typeⅡ). There were 14 cases (23.3%) showing the existence of inferior right hepatic vein (IRHV). Following to Nakamura Classification, 46 cases (76.7%) were presented in normal type (type I), typeⅡin 10 (16.7%), and typeⅢin 4 (6.7%).
Conclusion
1. The application of triple-phase scanning with 64-MSCT make it possible to acquire hepatic angiography with a higher resolution, depending on some functional software, such as MIP or VR. Compared with the conventional examination DSA, 64-MSCT three-dimensional reconstruction is a non-invasive and convenient vascular examination, which can provide complete and comprehensive information to observe the inner structure of vascular and the lesion from different angles.
2. 64-MSCT three-dimensional reconstruction can make it more clearly to understand the anatomical structure and the variation of inner hepatic vascular system. It has significantly valuation in segmentation, planning for tumor resection, intervention treatment of liver malignance and liver transplantation, especially in living-donor liver transplantation. Key Words: multi-slice computed tomography, liver, three-dimensional reconstruction, angiography, variation
PartⅡClinical application of liver volumetry in hepatic surgery
Objective
To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of liver volumetry using different methods and also to investigate the clinical value of liver volumetry in assessing liver functional reserve and as a parameter to predict the prognosis after major hepatectomy.
Materials and Methods
There were 50 patients, who were performed major hepatectomy, and 6 patients, who were performed orthotopic liver transplantation, in the first affiliated hospital of Soochow university from January 2008 to December 2009, were collected into this study and analyzed retrospectively. All of the patients were examined by triple-phase contrast-enhancement 64-MSCT and were applied for three-dimensional reconstruction. Three different kinds of workstation software were used to measure the volume of liver, such as Leonardo (Seimens Medical Solution), bundled with 64-MSCT, eFilm Workstation TM 2.1 (Merge Healthcare) and Myrian○R XP-Liver (Intrasense○R , France). Total liver volume (TLV), tumor volume (TuV) were measured by 64-MSCT. Functional liver volume (FLV), virtual resected liver volume (vRLV), remnant liver volume (RLV) and relative residual liver volume (%RLV) were calculated. All the results were compared with the actual volume, which was measured by the method of water displacement after tumor resection
All the pre-, peri- and post-operative information were recorded, such as sex, age, weight, height, C-P classification, operating time, blood loss and the remnant liver volume, complications and so on. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to delineate perioperative predictors of severe hepatic dysfunction. Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis was undertaken to determine the critical %RLV predicting severe hepatic dysfunction.
Results
1. The mean TLV of 56 patients measured by three different methods was 1355.9±806.8cm3, 1438.9±344.7cm3 and 1450.4±354.2 cm3. The mean volume of virtual reseced specimen volume (vRSV) was 754.9±326.8cm3, 740.7±322.1cm3 and 753.6±330.1 cm3. Compared with the mean volume of actual resected specimen volume (aRSV) using water displacement was 729.3±332.4 cm3 and the mean weight was 718.30±327.15g. Comparison by means of linear regression analysis between volume measurement on the software and the actual resected volume and weight showed a nearly ideal correlation coefficient (r=0.948, 0.927and 0.945, P<0.05; r=0.995, 0.986 and 0.980, P<0.05).
2. Univariate analysis revealed that intraoperative blood loss, RLV and %RLV were significant prognostic indication for severe hepatic dysfunction. The incidence of severe hepatic dysfunction following hepatic resection increased significantly with smaller %RLV. A critical %RLV of 0.32 was identified as associated with severe hepatic dysfunction (P<0.05).
Conclusion
1. Three methods used for measuring the volume of liver have different characteristics. Myrian○R XP-Liver was recommended for its convenience and efficiency.
2. Although the results measured by these three methods were different with actual volume measured by water displacement, all of them had a proper linear correlation with actual results.
3. Residual liver volume after virtual hepatectomy could be a predictor of hepatic dysfunction. The likelihood of severe hepatic dysfunction following hepatic resection can be predicted by a small %RLV. Reducing the intraoperative blood loss and increasing the RLV as much as possible can decrease the risk of hepatic post-operative dysfunction.
PartⅢImpact of virtual hepatectomy and computed-assisted risk analysis on operation planning and intraoperative strategy in major hepatic resection
Objective
To evaluate the impact of virtual hepatectomy and computed-assisted risk analysis on operation planning for major hepatectomies, in particular on extent of resection or need for vascular reconstruction.
Materials and Mehtods
Twenty-two consecutive patients (17 male, 5 female; median age, 47 years) admitted to the first affiliated hospital of Soochow university from January to December 2009 for complicated major hepatectomy. Underlying tumors were primary hepatocellular carcinoma (n=14, 63.6%), metastases of colorectal cancer (n=2, 9.1%), hemangioma (n=3,13.6%), Klaskin’s tumor (n=2, 9.1%) and gallbladder carcinoma (n=1, 4.5%). The CT scanning was performed with 64-MSCT (Somatom Sensation 64, Germany). All the data of imaging was imported into Myrian○R XP-Liver (Intrasense○R , France) system, and the three-dimensional reconstruction model was performed for virtual hepatectomy. The following steps were taken by 1 radiologist and 1 surgeon majoring in liver surgery: step 1, image analysis and 3-D reconstruction; step 2, virtual resection and liver volumetry; step 3, computer-assisted risk analysis for the hepatic dysfunction, and adjustment of the operation planning.
Results
1. The three-dimensional reconstruction model of liver by Myrian○R XP-Liver system is visualized and verisimilar. The ideal simulation effect can be achieved compared the virtual image with actual operation.
2. Overall, 22 patients underwent complicated major hepatectomy and in 20 of the 22 resections, complete tumor removal was achieved (R0 resection). The achieved safety margins ranged from 4mm to 4cm, with a median of 1.8 cm. There was 2 cases R1 resection. In these 2 cases, there were microscopic tumor at the cutting margin of the right portal vein and bile duct. There was no one died in operation and hospital stay. 2 cases appeared severe hepatic dysfunction after operation and was discharged 2~3 weeks later after conservative treatment. One of them died of severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding three months later.
3. In 6 patients, the results of computer-assisted risk analysis made us change operation planning and surgical strategy with regard to extent resection or the need for vascular reconstruction. With the planning, an optimal identification of safety resection margins could be achieved. The volume of remnant liver and the ischemia/congestion territory within the remaining parenchyma can be calculated. The operation planning and intraoperative strategy were adjusted to avoid liver parenchyma over resection and maintain a sufficient amount of liver tissue to sustain hepatic function.
Conclusion
The application of hepatic three-dimensional reconstruction and virtual hepatectomy, using Myrian○R XP-Liver system, can provide the important preoperative reference for a valuable planning and intraoperative strategy of complex hepatectomy.
目的
1.通过64-MSCT肝脏三期扫描,应用三维重建技术对肝动脉、肝静脉和门静脉血管成像,分析三者在肝内的分布结构和不同变异类型;
2.探讨肝内血管解剖结构及其变异对肝脏分段、肝脏肿瘤切除术、肝脏移植术和介入手术指导意义。
材料与方法
按一定纳入标准收集了苏州大学附属第一医院2008年1月~2008年6月期间行上腹部64-MSCT增强扫描的60例检查者作为研究对象,其中男37例,女23例,平均年龄49岁。全部检查者都应用64-MSCT(Somatom Sensation 64,Siemens)行平扫及三期增强扫描,将获得的扫描影像数据以1mm薄层重建后传至后期工作站。由2名影像科医生应用工作站软件对图像作以下处理:最大密度投影法(maximum intensity projection, MIP)、容积重建法(volume rendering, VR)、表面遮盖显示法(surface shadow display, SSD)及多轴向投影容积再现(multi-projection volumetric rendering, MPVR),将肝脏及内部血管三维重建。再有1名影像科医生和1名肝脏外科医生对三维重建的图像进行分析,根据肝内血管解剖分型的标准对肝动脉、肝静脉和门静脉进行解剖分型并记录所占比例。
结果
1. 60例检查者中肝动脉MichelsⅠ型(正常型)有47例(78.3%),其他13例(21.7%)存在肝动脉变异。其中MichelsⅡ型1例(1.7 %),Ⅲ型4例(6.7 %),Ⅴ型2例(3.3%),Ⅵ型3例(5.0%),Ⅷ型1例(1.7%),Ⅸ型1例(1.7 %),未发现Ⅳ型、Ⅶ型和Ⅹ型;另外还发现一例未被Michels分型包括在内的变异类型,无肝固有动脉,占1.7%。
2.门静脉分型中,Ⅰ型(正常型)有49例(81.7%),Ⅱ型7例(11.7%),Ⅲ型3例(5.0%),Ⅳ型1例(1.7%)。未发现特殊变异类型。
3.肝静脉分型中,绝大多数情况下(52/60,86.7%)肝右静脉单独汇入下腔静脉(Ⅰ型),而肝中、左静脉合干后汇入下腔静脉;少数(8/60,1.33 %)肝左、中、右静脉分别汇入下腔静脉(Ⅱ型)。并且,本组60例检查者中,共有14例(23.3%)显示肝右后下静脉(inferior right hepatic vein, IRHV)存在。根据Nakamura分型,肝静脉解剖结构变异Ⅰ型46例,占76.7%;Ⅱ型10例,占16.7%;Ⅲ型4例,占6.7%。
结论
1. 64-MSCT出现不但加快了数据采集的速度以及扫描完成后对获得的数据进行薄层重建,并可利用MIP、VR等后期软件处理技术可以对肝内血管系统在工作站进行三维重建成像,使高分辨率的CT血管成像(CTA)成为可能。相对于经典的DSA血管造影技术而言,这项技术不仅具有无创、操作简单等优点,而且可以从任意角度旋转来观察肝内血管及病变的情况。
2. 64-MSCT可以对肝内血管系统进行三维重建,从而对肝动脉、门静脉和肝静脉的解剖结构及变异进行研究,本组研究发现三者变异的发生率分别为21.7%、18.3%和23.3%。了解肝内血管系统的解剖结构及变异对肝段的重新定位及划分,对肝脏占位性病变的部分切除术、对肝脏肿瘤的介入手术、对肝脏移植术,尤其是活体肝移植术的术前判断及评估、手术方案的制定、手术的预后及并发症的早期发现和处理都有重要的意义。
第二部分肝脏体积测量在肝脏外科中的临床应用价值
目的
研究不同方法测量肝脏体积的可靠性和准确性,探讨64-MSCT测量肝脏体积对肝脏储备功能的评估及对预后判断的临床应用价值。
材料与方法
按一定纳入标准收集了苏州大学附属第一医院2008年1月~2009年12月期间50例行肝脏大部分切除术和6例行原位移植术的患者(男性42例,女性14例,平均年龄57岁)作为研究对象。56例患者术前都应用64-MSCT(Somatom Sensation 64,Siemens)行平扫及三期增强扫描,将获得的扫描影像数据1mm薄层重建后传至后期工作站。由1名影像科医生和1名肝脏外科医生分别应用64-MSCT自带后期处理软件(Leonardo, Siemens Medical Solutions, Malvern, Pennsylvania)、eFilm Workstation TM 2.1(Merge Healthcare)和Myrian○R XP-Liver医学影像分析系统(Intrasense○R , France)等三种不同方法测量肝脏体积,包括:全肝体积、肿瘤体积、功能肝体积、模拟切除肝体积和剩余肝体积,获得的结果分别与术后标本用排水法测得的实际体积进行比较,分析其相关性。记录患者的术前一般资料:年龄、性别、身高、体重、HbsAg和C-P分级等;术中资料:手术时间、术中失血量、肝门阻断时间、手术方式、剩余肝体积和残肝分数(%RLV)等;以及术后资料:肝功能、并发症情况等,应用单因素分析和Logistic多因素回归模型分析判断各种临床风险因素与术后发生肝功能障碍的影响,并应用受试者工作特性(ROC)曲线分析残肝分数对术后发生重度肝功能障碍的预测能力。
结果
1.三种方法(64-MSCT层切法、eFilm法和Myrian法)测量的全肝平均体积分别为:1355.9±806.8cm3,1438.9±344.7cm3和1450.4±354.2 cm3;模拟切除后预切除标本的平均体积分别为:754.9±326.8cm3,740.7±322.1cm3和753.6±330.1 cm3;而实际切除标本的平均质量为:718.30±327.15g,用排水法测量的平均体积为:729.3±332.4 cm3。前三者与后者体积的相关性比较,r=0.948,0.928和0.951(P<0.05);与后者质量的相关性比较,r=0.948, 0.927和0.945(<0.05);三种方法相互间相关性比较,r=0.995,0.986和0.980(<0.05)。说明三种方法测量的肝脏体积与实际体积呈高度正相关。
2.单因素分析显示术中失血量、剩余肝体积和残肝分数与术后肝功能损害程度相关,而年龄、性别、C-P分级、肿瘤大小、肝硬化程度、手术时间、肝门阻断时间等因素对术后发生肝功能损害的影响无统计学意义。Logistic多因素回归模型分析表明残肝分数(%RLV)是术后发生严重肝功能损害的独立预测因素。应用ROC曲线分析残肝分数预测术后发生严重肝功能损害的临界点是0.32(P<0.05)。
结论
1.三种工作站软件用于肝脏体积的测量,各有优劣。相比较而言, Myrian○R XP-Liver医学影像分析系统操作简单,高效,操作耗时短,获得的图像直观立体,测量数据准确,并且可在个人电脑上安装,带入手术室操作,方便手术医生。
2.经不同工作站软件测量获得的肝脏体积与实际肝脏体积之间虽然存在着一定的差异,但是都与实际体积存在着固定的线性关系,呈高度正相关。因此可应用64-MSCT比较准确地测量肝脏体积从而对肝脏储备功能提供全面的评价。
3.肝脏大部分切除术后发生严重肝功能障碍与术中失血量、剩余肝体积和残肝分数等因素相关;残肝分数<0.32,术后发生严重肝功能障碍的危险性增加。因此,应用64-MSCT及后期工作站软件对肝脏体积的测量,可以有效预测术后肝功能损害发生的风险。
第三部分虚拟肝脏手术与辅助风险分析对肝脏大部分切除术手术方案与术中策略的影响
目的
探讨应用肝脏三维重建模型来进行虚拟肝脏手术,对实际手术方案的制定及术中策略的影响。
材料与方法
按一定纳入标准前瞻性地选择了苏州大学附属第一医院2009年1月~2009年12月期间行较复杂的肝大部分切除术患者22例,其中男17例,女5例,平均年龄47岁。所有患者术前都行64-MSCT三期薄层扫描,将获得的影像数据导入Myrian○R XP-Liver医学影像分析系统(Intrasense○R , France),选用门静脉后期的图像三维重建来进行虚拟肝脏手术切除。步骤一:图像分析及三维重建;步骤二:虚拟手术切除,测量计算各部分的体积;步骤三:预后风险分析,调整和制定手术方案。将虚拟手术制定的方案与实际手术操作和术后情况进行比较。
结果
1.应用Myrian○R XP-Liver医学影像分析系统获得的肝脏三维重建模型形象逼真,立体感强,肝脏形态、肿瘤的大小、位置和与周围血管的空间毗邻关系一目了然,并且可从多个角度进行观察分析。虚拟的图像与手术中实际所见匹配良好,达到理想的模拟效果。
2. 22例患者都施行了肝脏大部分切除术,其中20例完整切除肿瘤,达到R0切除,安全切缘距肿瘤边缘最小距离4mm~4cm,平均2.4cm;2例为R1切除,1例原发性肝癌切缘最小距离肿瘤<4mm,切缘阳性;另1例肝门部胆管癌,术后病理镜下证实胆管断端阳性。本组病例无手术死亡和住院期间死亡,出现严重肝功能障碍2例,均保守治疗后好转出院,其中1例术后三月由于上消化道出血死亡。
3.本组病例中有6例患者通过预后风险分析,计算剩余肝脏体积和残肝分数,分析剩余肝组织可能出现缺血/淤血的范围,认为术后肝功能障碍发生危险性增加,于是调整了切除范围,最大限度保留功能性肝组织,从而制定了合理的手术方案,影响了术中策略,取得良好的手术效果。
结论
应用Myrian○R XP-Liver医学影像分析系统进行肝脏三维重建及虚拟肝脏切除手术,可以为精确地安全地施行复杂的肝脏大部分切除术,最大限度减少术后肝功能障碍的发生,制定合理的手术方案和采取正确的术中策略提供重要的术前参考。
Part I Studies of anatomy of liver vascular with 64-MSCT three-dimensional reconstruction
Objective
To analyze the inner anatomical structure and variation of hepatic artery, vein and portal vein through hepatic angiography using three-dimensional reconstruction technique. To investigate the instructive significance for segmentation, liver tumor resection, liver transplantation and intervention for different vascular anatomical structure and variation.
Materials and Methods
Total 60 patients, who were performed upper abdominal examination using triple-phase contrast-enhancement 64-MSCT in the first affiliated hospital of Soochow university, were collected into this study in a period of 6 months, from Jan to Jun, 2008. All of the data sets were transfered to workstation after being reconstructed in 1-mm section and 1-mm interval. Two radiologists took the charge of dealing with the data sets for maximum intensity projection (MIP), volume rendering (VR), surface shadow display (SSD), multi-projection intensity rendering (MPVR) and angiography. Furthermore, analyzed by 1 radiologist and 1 surgeon majoring in liver surgery, the anatomical structure of hepatic artery, vein and portal vein were classified according to certain standards and the rates of variation were recorded.
Results
1. Among the 60 patients, there were 47 patients (78.3%) belonging to Michels type I (normal hepatic artery anatomy), and other 13 patients (21.7%) showing the existence of variation. They were typeⅡin 1 (1.7%), typeⅢin 4 (6.7%), typeⅤin 2 (3.3%), typeⅥin 3 (5.0%), both typeⅧand typeⅨin 1 (1.7%), and there was no typeⅩ,Ⅳ, andⅦ. However, a special variation type without proper hepatic artery was presented, which could not be included in the Michels Classification.
2. Normal portal vein anatomy (type I) was shown in 49 cases (81.7%), typeⅡin 7 (11.7%), typeⅢin 3 (5.0%) and typeⅣin 1 (1,7%). There was no special variation founded.
3. Most cases (52/60, 86.7%) of RHV drained into IVC alone (belonging to type I) , and MHC combined with LHV into IVC. Less cases (8/60, 1.33%) of these three hepatic vein drained into IVC respectively (typeⅡ). There were 14 cases (23.3%) showing the existence of inferior right hepatic vein (IRHV). Following to Nakamura Classification, 46 cases (76.7%) were presented in normal type (type I), typeⅡin 10 (16.7%), and typeⅢin 4 (6.7%).
Conclusion
1. The application of triple-phase scanning with 64-MSCT make it possible to acquire hepatic angiography with a higher resolution, depending on some functional software, such as MIP or VR. Compared with the conventional examination DSA, 64-MSCT three-dimensional reconstruction is a non-invasive and convenient vascular examination, which can provide complete and comprehensive information to observe the inner structure of vascular and the lesion from different angles.
2. 64-MSCT three-dimensional reconstruction can make it more clearly to understand the anatomical structure and the variation of inner hepatic vascular system. It has significantly valuation in segmentation, planning for tumor resection, intervention treatment of liver malignance and liver transplantation, especially in living-donor liver transplantation. Key Words: multi-slice computed tomography, liver, three-dimensional reconstruction, angiography, variation
PartⅡClinical application of liver volumetry in hepatic surgery
Objective
To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of liver volumetry using different methods and also to investigate the clinical value of liver volumetry in assessing liver functional reserve and as a parameter to predict the prognosis after major hepatectomy.
Materials and Methods
There were 50 patients, who were performed major hepatectomy, and 6 patients, who were performed orthotopic liver transplantation, in the first affiliated hospital of Soochow university from January 2008 to December 2009, were collected into this study and analyzed retrospectively. All of the patients were examined by triple-phase contrast-enhancement 64-MSCT and were applied for three-dimensional reconstruction. Three different kinds of workstation software were used to measure the volume of liver, such as Leonardo (Seimens Medical Solution), bundled with 64-MSCT, eFilm Workstation TM 2.1 (Merge Healthcare) and Myrian○R XP-Liver (Intrasense○R , France). Total liver volume (TLV), tumor volume (TuV) were measured by 64-MSCT. Functional liver volume (FLV), virtual resected liver volume (vRLV), remnant liver volume (RLV) and relative residual liver volume (%RLV) were calculated. All the results were compared with the actual volume, which was measured by the method of water displacement after tumor resection
All the pre-, peri- and post-operative information were recorded, such as sex, age, weight, height, C-P classification, operating time, blood loss and the remnant liver volume, complications and so on. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to delineate perioperative predictors of severe hepatic dysfunction. Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis was undertaken to determine the critical %RLV predicting severe hepatic dysfunction.
Results
1. The mean TLV of 56 patients measured by three different methods was 1355.9±806.8cm3, 1438.9±344.7cm3 and 1450.4±354.2 cm3. The mean volume of virtual reseced specimen volume (vRSV) was 754.9±326.8cm3, 740.7±322.1cm3 and 753.6±330.1 cm3. Compared with the mean volume of actual resected specimen volume (aRSV) using water displacement was 729.3±332.4 cm3 and the mean weight was 718.30±327.15g. Comparison by means of linear regression analysis between volume measurement on the software and the actual resected volume and weight showed a nearly ideal correlation coefficient (r=0.948, 0.927and 0.945, P<0.05; r=0.995, 0.986 and 0.980, P<0.05).
2. Univariate analysis revealed that intraoperative blood loss, RLV and %RLV were significant prognostic indication for severe hepatic dysfunction. The incidence of severe hepatic dysfunction following hepatic resection increased significantly with smaller %RLV. A critical %RLV of 0.32 was identified as associated with severe hepatic dysfunction (P<0.05).
Conclusion
1. Three methods used for measuring the volume of liver have different characteristics. Myrian○R XP-Liver was recommended for its convenience and efficiency.
2. Although the results measured by these three methods were different with actual volume measured by water displacement, all of them had a proper linear correlation with actual results.
3. Residual liver volume after virtual hepatectomy could be a predictor of hepatic dysfunction. The likelihood of severe hepatic dysfunction following hepatic resection can be predicted by a small %RLV. Reducing the intraoperative blood loss and increasing the RLV as much as possible can decrease the risk of hepatic post-operative dysfunction.
PartⅢImpact of virtual hepatectomy and computed-assisted risk analysis on operation planning and intraoperative strategy in major hepatic resection
Objective
To evaluate the impact of virtual hepatectomy and computed-assisted risk analysis on operation planning for major hepatectomies, in particular on extent of resection or need for vascular reconstruction.
Materials and Mehtods
Twenty-two consecutive patients (17 male, 5 female; median age, 47 years) admitted to the first affiliated hospital of Soochow university from January to December 2009 for complicated major hepatectomy. Underlying tumors were primary hepatocellular carcinoma (n=14, 63.6%), metastases of colorectal cancer (n=2, 9.1%), hemangioma (n=3,13.6%), Klaskin’s tumor (n=2, 9.1%) and gallbladder carcinoma (n=1, 4.5%). The CT scanning was performed with 64-MSCT (Somatom Sensation 64, Germany). All the data of imaging was imported into Myrian○R XP-Liver (Intrasense○R , France) system, and the three-dimensional reconstruction model was performed for virtual hepatectomy. The following steps were taken by 1 radiologist and 1 surgeon majoring in liver surgery: step 1, image analysis and 3-D reconstruction; step 2, virtual resection and liver volumetry; step 3, computer-assisted risk analysis for the hepatic dysfunction, and adjustment of the operation planning.
Results
1. The three-dimensional reconstruction model of liver by Myrian○R XP-Liver system is visualized and verisimilar. The ideal simulation effect can be achieved compared the virtual image with actual operation.
2. Overall, 22 patients underwent complicated major hepatectomy and in 20 of the 22 resections, complete tumor removal was achieved (R0 resection). The achieved safety margins ranged from 4mm to 4cm, with a median of 1.8 cm. There was 2 cases R1 resection. In these 2 cases, there were microscopic tumor at the cutting margin of the right portal vein and bile duct. There was no one died in operation and hospital stay. 2 cases appeared severe hepatic dysfunction after operation and was discharged 2~3 weeks later after conservative treatment. One of them died of severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding three months later.
3. In 6 patients, the results of computer-assisted risk analysis made us change operation planning and surgical strategy with regard to extent resection or the need for vascular reconstruction. With the planning, an optimal identification of safety resection margins could be achieved. The volume of remnant liver and the ischemia/congestion territory within the remaining parenchyma can be calculated. The operation planning and intraoperative strategy were adjusted to avoid liver parenchyma over resection and maintain a sufficient amount of liver tissue to sustain hepatic function.
Conclusion
The application of hepatic three-dimensional reconstruction and virtual hepatectomy, using Myrian○R XP-Liver system, can provide the important preoperative reference for a valuable planning and intraoperative strategy of complex hepatectomy.
引文
1. Lamade W, Glombiza G, Fischer L, et al. The impact of 3-dimensional reconstruction on operation planning in liver surgery. Arch Surg. 2000; 135:1256-1261.
2. Sahani D, Mehta A, Blake M, et al. Preoperative hepatic vascular evaluation with CT and MR angiography: implications for surgery. Radio Graphics. 2004; 24: 1367-1380.
3. Soyer P, Bluemke DA, Bliss DF, et al. Surgical Segmental Anatomy of the Liver: Demonstration with Spiral CT During Arterial Portography and Multiplanar Reconstruction. AJR. 1994; 163: 99-103.
4. Soyer P, Roche A, Gad M, et al. Preoperative segmental localization of hepatic metastases: Utility of three-dimensional CT during arterial portography. Radiology. 1991; 180: 653-658.
5. Fasel JHD, Gailloud P, Grossholz M, et al. Relationship between intrahepatic vessels and computer-generated hepatic as issurae: an in vitro assay. Surg Radiol Anat. 1996; 18: 43-46.
6. Nelson RC, Chezmar JL, Sugarbaker PH, et al. Preoperative localization of focal liver lesions to specific liver segments: utility of CT during arterial portography. Radiology. 1990; 176: 89-94.
7. Aytekin O, Eric PT, Janio S. Multidetector row CT of the liver. Radiol Clin N Am. 2005; 43: 827-848.
8. Andrea L. Multidetector CT (64 slices) of the liver: examination techniques. Eur
9. Michels NA. Newer anatomy of the liver and its variant blood supply and collateral circulation. Am J Surg. 1966; 112: 337-347.
10. Takahashi S, Murakami T, Takamura M, et al. Multi-detector row helical CT angiography of hepatic vessels: depiction with dual-arterial phase acquisition during single breath hold. Radiology. 2002; 222: 81-88.
11.林江,陈祖望,周康荣,等.肝内门静脉和肝静脉的解剖和变异(三维动态增强磁共振血管成像分析).中华放射学杂志. 1999; 33: 403-406.
12. Atri M, Bert PM, Fraser-Hill MA. Intrahepatic portal venous variants: prevalence with US. Radiology 1992; 184: 157-158.
13. Soyer P, Bluemke DA, Choti MA, et al. Variations in the intrahepatic portions of the hepatic and portal veins: findings on helical CT scans during arterial portography. AJR. 1995; 164: 103-108.
14. Nakamura S, Tsuzuki T. Surgical anatomy of the hepatic veins and the inferior vena cava. Surgical Gynecol Obstet. 1981; 152:43-50.
15. Lee SS, Kim TK, Byun JH, et al. Hepatic arteries in potential donors for living related liver transplantation: evaluation with multi-detector row CT angiography. Radiology. 2003; 227: 391-399.
16. Sahani D, Saini S, Pena C, et al. Using multi-detector CT for preoperative vascular evaluation of liver neoplasm: technique and results. AJR. 2002; 179:53-59.
17. Covey AM, Brody LA, Maluccio MA, et al. Variant hepatic arteric antomy revisited: digital subtraction angiography performed in 600 patients. Radiology. 2002; 224: 542-547.
18. Michels NA. Blood supply and anatomy of the upper abdominal organs with a descriptive atlas. Philadelphia: Lippincott. 1955; 40.
19. Schroeder T, Radtke A, Kuehl H, et al. Evaluation of living liver donors with an all-inclusive 3D multi-detector row CT protocol. Radiology. 2006; 238: 900-910.
20. Stemmler BJ, Paulson EK, Thornton FJ, et al. Dual-phase 3D MSCT angiography forevaluation of the liver before hepatic resection. AJR. 2004; 183:1551-1557.
21. Alonso-Torres A, Fernández-Cuadrado J, Pinilla I, et al. Multi-detector CT in the evaluation of potential living donors for liver transplantation. Radio Graphics. 2005; 25: 1017-1030.
22. Covey AM, Brody LA,Getrajdman GI, et al. Incidence, patterns, and clinical relevance of variant portal vein anatomy. AJR. 2004; 183: 1055-1064.
23. Akgul E, Inal M, Soyupak S, et al. Portal venous variations: prevalence with contrast enhanced helical CT. Acta Radiol. 2002; 43: 315–319.
24.刘树伟,孙劲文.肝门区门静脉的解剖研究.山东医科大学学报. 1993; 31: 394-396.
25.吕粟,周翔平,陈卫霞,等. 16层螺旋CT上正常人肝内门静脉变异分析.解剖学杂志. 2006; 29:339-341.
26. Makuuchi M, Hasegawa H, Yamazaki S, et al. The inferior right hepatic vein: ultrasonic demonstration. Radiology. 1083; 148: 213-217.
27.刘静,李忠华,王海兴,等.右叶部分肝移植肝静脉的临床应用解剖.中国临床解剖学杂志. 2004; 22: 236-238.
28. Rieker O, Mildenberger P, Hintze C, et al. Segmental anatomy of the liver in computed tomography: do we localize the lesion accurately? Rofo. 2000; 172: 147-52.
29. Winter TC III, Freeny PC, Nghiem HV, et al. Hepatic arterial anatomy in transplantation candidates: evaluation with three-dimensional CT arteriography. Radiology. 1995; 195: 363-370.
30. Erbay N, Raptopoulos V, Pornfret EA, et al. Living donor liver transplantation in adults: vascular variants important in surgical planning for donors and recipients. AJR. 2003; 181: 109-114.
31. Frericks BB, Caldarone FC, Nashan B, et al. 3D CT modeling of hepatic vessel architecture and volume calculation in living donated liver transplantation. Eur. Radiol. 2004; 14: 326-333.
32. Limanond P, Raman SS, Ghobrial RM, et al. Preoperative imaging in adult-to-adultliving related liver transplant donors. J Comput Asisit Tomogr. 2004; 28:149-157.
33. Atasoy C, Ozyürek E. Prevalence and types of main and right portal vein branching variations on MDCT. AJR. 2006; 187: 676-681.
34. Chen WH. Multi-slice spiral CT angiography in evaluating donors of living-related liver transplantation. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2007; 6: 364-369.
35. Schroeder T, Radtke A, Kuehl H, et al. Evaluation of living liver donors with an all-inclusive 3D multi–detector row CT protocol. Radiology. 2006; 238: 900-910.
1. Aytekin O, Eric PT, Janio S. Multidetector row CT of the liver. Radiol Clin N Am.2005, 43: 827-848.
2.张龙江,宋光义,包颜明,等.肝脏血管解剖和变异的多层螺旋CT血管成像研究.中华放射学杂志,2005,39:963-967.
3. Simon A, Ronald M, Jules J. et al. Liver volumetry plug and play: Do it yourself with ImageJ. World J Surg, 2007, 31:2215-2221.
4.潘华锋,陈孝平,邹明丽,等. CT检查预测肝癌手术切除安全性的价值.肝胆外科杂志,2000,8:185-188.
5.胡咏梅,武晓洛,胡志红,等.关于中国人体表面积公式的研究.生理学报,1999; 51: 45-48.
6. Urata K,Kawasaki S ,Matsunami H ,et al. Calculation of child and adult standard liver volume for liver transplantation. Hepatology 1995; 21: 1317-1321.
7.许敏,吴在德,陈孝平等.肝脏外科解剖学及肝段体积的测定.中国普通外科杂志,1996,5:1-2.
8. Van Thiel DH. Hagler NG, Schade RR, et al. In vivo hepatic volume determination using sonography and computed tomography: validation and comparison of the tow techniques. Gastroenterology. 1985, 88:1812-1817.
9. Heymsfield SB, Fulenwider T, Nordingler B, et al. Accurate measurement of liver, kidney and spleen volume and mass by computerized axial tomography. Ann Intern Med. 1979, 90:185-187.
10. Moss AM, Friedman MA, Brito AC, et al. Determination of liver and spleen volume by computed tomography: An experimental study in dogs. T Comput Assist Tomogr. 1981, 5:12-14.
11. Kasi H, Makuuchi M, Kawasaki S, et al. Intraoperative color Doppler ultrasonography for partial-liver transplantation from the living donors in pediatric patients, Transplantation. 1992, 54:173-175.
12. Higashiyama H, Yamaguchi T, Mori K, et al. Graft size assessment by preoperative computed tomography in living-related partial liver transplantation. Br J Surg. 1993, 80: 653-658.
13. Urata K, Kawasaki S, Matsunami H, et al. Calculation of child and adult standard liver volume for liver transplantation. Hepatology. 1995, 21:1317-1321.
14. Schiano TD, Bodian C, Schwartz ME, et al. Accuracy and significance of computed tomographic scan assessment of hepatic volume in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2000.27; 69: 545-50.
15.漆德芳,主编.肝硬化.北京:北京科学技术出版社,2000. 227-241.
16.迟彦邦,主编.实用肝胆外科.石家庄:河北科学技术出版社,1996. 43-89.
17. Mullin EJ, Metcalfe MS, Maddern GJ. How much liver resection is too much? Am J Surg. 2005, 190: 87-97.
18. Pugh RN, Murray-Lyon IM, Dawson JL, et al. Transection of the oesophagus for bleeding oesophageal varices. Br J Surg. 1973, 60: 646-649.
19. Kamath PS, Wiesner RH, Malinchoc M, et al. A Model to Predict Survival in Patients With End-Stage Liver Disease. Hepatology.2001, 33: 464-470.
20. Makuuchi M, Kosuge T, Takayama T, et al. Surgery for small liver cancers. Sem in Surg Oncol. 1993, 9:298-303.
21.涂蓉,罗建光,郑进方,等. CT测量保留肝容积率对肝癌切除术前肝储备功能的评估价值.中华放射医学杂志,2005,39:710-713.
22. Okamoto E, Kyo A, Yamanaka N. Prediction of the safe limits of hepatectomy by combined volumetric and functional measurements in patients with impaired hepatic function. Surgery, 1984, 95: 586-591.
23. Rau HG, Schauer R, Helmberger T, et al. Impact of virtual reality imaging on hepatic liver tumor resection: calculation of risk. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2000,385: 162-170.
24. Shirabe K, ShimadaM, Gion T, et al. Postoperative liver failure after major hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in the modern era with special reference to remnant liver volume. J Am Coll Surg, 1999, 188: 304-309.
25.林科灿,刘景丰.虚拟可视化肝脏在肝脏手术中的应用现状.中华试验外科杂志,2007,10:127-128.
26. Schindl MJ, Redhead DN, Fearon KCH, et al. The value of residual volume as apredictor of hepatic dysfunction and infection after major liver resection. Gut, 2005, 54: 289-296.
27. Fan ST. Live donor liver transplantation in adults. Transplantation. 2006, 82:723-732.
28. Marcos A, Fisher RA, Ham JM, et al. Liver regeneration and function in donor and recipient right lobe adult to adult to living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2000, 69:1375-1379.
29. Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, et al. Safety of donors in live donor liver transplantation using right lobe grafts. Arch Surg. 2000, 135: 336-340.
30. Schiano TD, Bodian C, Schwartz ME, et al. Accuracy and significance of computed tomographic scan assessment of hepatic volume in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Transplantation, 2000, 69: 545-550.
31. Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu C, et al. Extending the limit on the size of adult recipient in living donor liver transplantation using extended right lobe graft. Transplantation, 1997, 63: 1524.
32. Tucker ON, Heaton N, et al. The small of size liver syndrome. Curr Opin Crit Care, 2005, 150.
33.钟林,彭志海.成人活体肝移植面临的困境-小体积移植问题.中华肝脏病杂志, 2004, 9: 188-189.
34. Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL, et al. Minimum graft size for successful living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation, 1999, 68: 1112-1116.
35.秦红波,王学浩,张峰,等.活体肝移植供体的选择与评估.江苏医药杂志, 2005, 31: 42-44.
36.王伯韬,刘云霞,李祎,等. MSCT三维体积测量对肝移植供体肝体积术前测量的研究.中国实验诊断学,2009, 13: 913-915.
1. Marescaux J, Clément JM, Tassetti V, et al. Virtual reality applied to hepatic surgery simulation: the next revolution. Ann Surg. 1998; 228: 627-634.
2. LamadéW, Glombitza G, Fischer L, et al. The impact of 3-dimensional reconstruction on operation planning in liver surgery. Arch Surg. 2000; 135:1256-1261.
3. Vauthey JN, Chaoui A, Do KA, et al. Standardized measurement of the future liver remnant prior to extended liver resection: methodology and clinical associations. Surgery. 2000; 127: 512-519.
4. Yigitler C, Farges O, Kianmanesh R, Regimbeau JM, Belghiti J. The small remnant liver after major liver resection: how common and how relevant? Liver Transpl 2003; 9: S18-S25.
5. Couinaud C. Le Foie: Etudes Anatomique et Chirurgicales. Paris, France: Masson; 1957.
6. Fischer L, Cardenas C, Thorn M, et al. Limits of Couinaud’s liver segment classification: a quantitative computer-based three-dimensional analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2002; 26: 962-967.
7. Selle D, Preim B, Schenk A, Peitgen H-O. Analysis of vasculature for liver surgery planning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging。2002; 21: 1344-1357.
8. Van Ooijen PMA, Wolf R, Schenk A, et al. Recent developments in organ selective reconstruction and analysis of multiphase liver CT. Imaging Decis. 2003; 7: 37-43.
9. Bourquain H, Schenk A, Link F, et al. HepaVision 2: a software assistant for preoperative planning in living-related liver transplantation and oncologic liver surgery. In: Lemke HU, Vannier MW, Inamura K, Farman AG, Doi K, Reiber JHC, eds. CARS 2002: Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery: Proceedings of the 16th International Congress and Exhibition, Paris, June 26-29, 2002. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag NYInc; 2002: 341-346.
10. Yamanaka J, Saito S, Fujimoto J. Impact of preoperative planning using virtual segmental volumetry on liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Surg. 2007; 31: 1249-1255
11. Fuchs J, Warmann SW, Szavay P, et al. Three-dimensional visualization and virtual simulation of resections in pediatric solid tumors. J Pediatr Surg. 2005; 40: 364-370.
12. Togo S, Shimada H, Kanemura E, et al. Usefulness of three-dimensional computed tomography for anatomic liver resection: sub-subsegmentectomy. Surgery 1998: 123:73-78.
13. Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL, Wong J. Hepatic venoplasty in living-donor liver transplantation using right lobe graft with middle hepatic vein. Transplantation 2003; 75: 358-360.
14. MalagóM, Testa G, Frilling A, et al. Right living donor liver transplantation: an option for adult patients: single institution experience with 74 patients. Ann Surg 2003; 238: 853-863.
15. Lang H, Radtke A, Hindennach M, et al. Impact of Virtual tumor resection and computer-assisted risk analysis on operation planning and intraoperative stragegy in major hepatic resection. Arch Surg 2005; 140: 630-638.
16. Maier-Hein L, Pianka F, Seitel A, et al. Precision targeting of liver lesions with a needle-based soft tissue navigation system. Med Image Comput Assist Interv Int Conf Med Image Comput Assist Interv 2007; 10:42-49.
17. Beller S, Hunerbein M, Lange T, et al. Image-guided surgery of liver metastases by three-dimensional ultrasound-based optoelectronic navigation. Br J Surg 2007: 94:866-875.
1. Prokop M. Multislice CT: technical principles and future trends. Eur Radiol 2003; 13 (Suppl 5): M3–M13.
2. Klingenbeck-Regn K, Schaller S, Flohr T, et al. Subsecond multi-slice computed tomography: basics and applications. Eur J Radiol 1999; 31:110–124.
3. Hu H, He HD, Foley WD, Fox SH. Four multidetector-row helical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology 2000; 215:55–62.
4. Prokop. Image processing and display techniques. In: Prokop M, Galanski M (eds) Spiral and multislice computed tomography of the body. Thieme, Stuttgart 2003; pp 131–160.
5. Brink JA. Contrast optimization and scan timing for single- and multidetector-row computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003; 27 Suppl 1: S3–86.
6. Fleischmann D Future prospects in MDCT imaging. Eur Radiol 2003; 13 (Suppl 5): M127–M128.
7. Prokop M. General principles of MDCT. Eur J Radiol 2003; 45: S4–S10.
8. Flohr T, Stierstorfer K, Bruder H, Simon J, Schaller S. New technical developments in multislice CT. Part 1: approaching isotropic resolution with sub-millimeter 16-slice scanning. R?Fo Fortschr R?ntgenstr 2002; 174: 839–845.
9. Oto A, Tamm EP, Szklaruk J. Multidetector row CT of the liver. Radiol Clin N Am. 2005; 43: 827–848.
10. Pandharipande PV, Krinsky GA, Rusinek H, Lee VS. Perfusion imaging of the liver: current challenges and future goals. Radiology 2005; 234: 661–673.
11. Platten D, Keat N, Lewis M, Edyvean S. Report 05068. 32 to 64 slice CT scanner comparison report version 13. ImPACT, Purchasing and Supply Agency 2005; 1–23.
12. Flohr TG, Stierstorfer K, Ulzheimer S, et al. Image reconstruction and image quality evaluation for a 64-slice CT scanner with z-flying focal spot. Med Phys 2005; 32(8): 2536–2547.
13. Abdelmoumene A, Chevallier P, Chalaron M, et al. Detection of liver metastases under 2 cm: comparison of different acquisition protocols in four row multidetector-CT(MDCT). Eur Radiol 2005; 15(9): 1881–1887.
14. Fenchel S, Fleiter TR, Merkle EM. Multislice helical CT of the abdomen. Eur Radiol 2002; 12 (Suppl 2): S5–S10.
15. Mulkens TH, Bellinck P, Baeyaert M, et al. Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multi-detector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation. Radiology 2005; 237(1): 213–223.
16. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 2004; 233(3): 649–657.
17. Foley WD, Mallisee TA, Hohenwalter MD, et al. Multiphase hepatic CT with a multirow detector CT scanner. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175:679–685.
18. Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Rossi P, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: detection with triple-phase multidetector row CT in patients with chronic hepatitis. Radiology 2003; 226: 543–549.
19. Murakami T, Kim T, Takamura M, et al. Hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma: detection with double arterial phase multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology 2001; 218: 763–767.
20. Itoh S, Ikeda M, Achiwa M, Satake H, Iwano S, Ishigaki T. Late-arterial and portal-venous phase imaging of the liver with a multislice CT scanner in patients without circulatory disturbances: automatic bolus tracking or empirical scan delay? Eur Radiol 2004; 14 (9): 1665–1673.
21. Fleischmann D. Use of highconcentration contrast media in multiple-detector-row CT: principles and rationale. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: M14–M20.
22. Kim T, Murakami T, Takahashi S, et al. Effects of injection rates of contrast material on arterial phase hepatic CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171 (2): 429–432.
23. Awai K, Takada K, Onishi H, et al. Aortic and hepatic enhancement and tumor to liver contrast: analysis of the effect of different concentrations of contrast material at multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology 2002; 224:757–763.
24. MarchianòA. MDCT of Primary liver malignancies. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: M26-M30.
25. Suzuki H, Oshima H, Shiraki N, Ikeya C, Shibamoto Y. Comparison of two contrastmaterials with different iodine concentrations in enhancing the density of the the aorta, portal vein and liver at multi-detector row CT: a randomized study. Eur Radiol 2004;14 (11): 2099–2104.
26. Schoellnast H, Tillich M, Deutschmann HA, et al. Improvement of parenchymal and vascular enhancement using saline flush and power injection for multiple-detector-row abdominal CT. Eur Radiol 2004; 14(4): 659–664.
27. Dorio PJ, Lee FT Jr, Henseler KP, et al. Shock SA. Using a saline chaser to decrease contrast media in abdominal CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180:929–934.
28. Rubin GD. Data explosion: the challenge of multidetector-row CT. Eur J Radiol 2000, 36:74–80.
29. Kamel IR, Georgiades C, Fishman EK. Incremental value of advanced image processing of multislice computed tomography data in the evaluation of hypervascular liver lesions. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003; 27:652–656.
30. Raptopoulos V, Kataoka M, Siewert B, Goldberg SN; Sheiman R, Kruskal J. Clinically perceived value of routine coronal and sagittal multiplanar reconstructions in abdominal CT scans: increased value with increased detectorrows from 4- to 64-row MDCT. Radiology (p) 296 abstract
31. Sahani D, Krishnamurthy S, Kalva S, et al. Multidetector-row computed tomography angiography for planning intra-arterial chemotherapy pump placement in patients with colorectal metastases to the liver. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004; 28: 478–484.
32. Guiney MJ, Kruskal JB, Sosna J, et al. Multi-detector row CT of relevant vascular anatomy of the surgical plane in split-liver transplantation. Radiology 2003; 229: 401–407.
33. Schroeder T, Nadalin S, Stattaus J, et al. Potential living liver donors: evaluation with an all-in-one protocol with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2002; 224: 586–591.
34. Becker CD. Multidetector CT and MRI of biliary diseases. J Radiol 2003; 84: 473–479.
35. Abdalla EK, Denys A, Chevalier P, et al. Total and segmental liver volume variations: implications for liver surgery. Surgery 2004; 135: 404–410.
36. Lang H, Radtke A, Hindennach M, et al. Impact of virtual tumor resection and computer-assisted risk analysis on operation planning and intraoperative strategy in major hepatic resection. Arch Surg 2005; 140(7):629–638.
37. Meier S, Schenk A, Mildenberger P, et al. Evaluation of a new software tool for the automatic volume calculation of hepatic tumors. First results. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 2004; 176:234–238.
38. Castillo OA, Keriakos K, Stinchon JF, Jara H, Soto JA. Automated liver segmentation and volume calculation from MDCT data sets using a dualclustering technique: comparison with planimetry. Radiology 2005; (p) 509 abstract.
39. Blomley MJK, Coulden R, Dawson P, et al. Liver perfusion studied with ultrafast CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1995;19: 424–433.
40. Guan S, Zhao WD, Zhou KR, Peng WJ, Mao J, Tang F. CT perfusion at early stage of hepatic diffuse disease. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11 (22): 3465–3467.
41. Nakashige A, Horiguchi J, Tamura A, et al. Quantitative measurement of hepatic portal perfusion by multidetector row CT with compensation for respiratory misregistration. Br J Radiol 2004; 77: 728–734.
42. Weidekamm C, Cejna M, Kramer L, Peck-Radosavljevic M, Bader TR. Effects of TIPS on liver perfusion measured by dynamic CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 505–510.
43. Holalkere NS, Sahani DV, Zhu AX, Setty BN, Muller PR. CT perfusion in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): an initial experience. Radiology 2005; (p) 327.
44. Fabiano S, Squillaci E, Carlani M, et al. CT perfusion studies of liver lesions with a 64-detector row scanner: initial clinical results. Radiology 2005; (p) 837 abstract.
45. Tsushima Y, Funabasama S, Aoki J, et al. Quantitative perfusion map of malignant liver tumors, created for dynamic computed tomography data. Acad Radiol 2004; 11:215–222 abstract.
1. Foley WD, Mallisee TA, Hohenwalter MD, et al.Multiphase hepatic CT with a multirow detector CT scanner. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175:679-685.
2. Ji H, McTavish JD, Mortele KJ, et al. Hepatic imaging with multidetector CT. Radiographics 2001; 21 Spec No:S71-80.
3. Hu H, He HD, Foley WD, et al. Four multidetectorrow helical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology 2000; 215: 55-62.
4. Hu H, He DH, Foley DW, et al. Four multidetectorrow helical CT: image quality andvolume coverage speed. Radiology 2000; 215:55-62.
5. Spielmann AL, Nelson RC, Lowry CR, et al. Liver: single breath-hold dynamic subtraction CT with multidetector row helical technology feasibility study. Radiology 2002;222:278-283.
6. Nakashige A, Horiguichi J, Tamura A, et al. Quantitative measurement of hepatic portal perfusion by multidetector row CT with compensation for respiratory misregistration. Br J Radiol 2004; 77: 728-734.
7. Leslie DF, Johnson CD, Johnson CM, et al. Distinction between cavernous hemangiomas of the liver and hepatic metastases on CT: value of contrast enhancement patterns. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164: 625-629.
8. Sahani D, Saini S, Pena C, et al. Using multidetector CT for preoperative vascular evaluation of liver neoplasms: technique and results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 53-59.
9. Kapoor V, Brancatelli G, Federle MP, et al. Multidetector CT arteriography with volumetric threedimensional rendering to evaluate patients with metastatic colorectal disease for placement of a floxuridine infusion pump. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 455-463.
10. Shanley CJ, Shah NL, Messina LM. Common splanchnic artery aneurysms: splenic, hepatic, and celiac. Ann Vasc Surg 1996;10: 315-322.
11. Katyal S, Oliver JH, Peterson MS, et al. Prognostic ignificance of arterial phase CT for prediction of response to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175: 1665-1672.
12. Quiroga S, Sebastia C, Pallisa E, et al. Improved diagnosis of hepatic perfusion disorders: value of hepatic arterial phase imaging during helical CT. Radiographics 2001; 21: 65-81 [questionnaire 288–94].
13. Gates J, Hartnell GG, Stuart KE, et al. Chemoembolization of hepatic neoplasms: safety, complications, and when to worry. Radiographics 1999; 19: 399-414.
14. Smith GS, Birnbaum BA, Jacobs JE. Hepatic infarction secondary to arterial insufficiency in native livers: CT findings in 10 patients. Radiology 1998; 208: 223-229.
15. Holbert BL, Baron RL, Dodd 3rd GD. Hepatic infarction caused by arterial insufficiency: spectrum and evolution of CT findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166: 815-820.
16. Brancatelli G, Katyal S, Federle MP, et al. Threedimensional multislice helical computed tomography with the volume rendering technique in the detection of vascular complications after liver transplantation. Transplantation 2002; 73:2 37-242.
17. Quiroga S, Sebastia MC, Margarit C, et al. Complications of orthotopic liver transplantation: spectrum of findings with helical CT. Radiographics 2001;21: 1085-1102.
18. Cheng YF, Huang TL, Lee TY, et al. Variation of the intrahepatic portal vein; angiographic demonstration and application in living-related hepatic transplantation. Transplant Proc 1996; 28: 1667-1668.
19. Kamel IR, Kruskal JB, Pomfret EA, et al. Impact of multidetector CT on donor selection and surgical planning before living adult right lobe liver transplantation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176: 193-200.
20. Pannu HK, Maley WR, Fishman EK. Liver transplantation: preoperative CT evaluation. Radiographics 2001; 21 Spec no:S133-146.
21. Quiroga S, Sebastia MC, Margarit C, et al. Complications of orthotopic liver transplantation: spectrum of findings with helical CT. Radiographics 2001;21: 1085–102.
22. Kamel IR, Lawler LP, Fishman EK. Variations in anatomy of the middle hepatic vein and their impact on formal right hepatectomy. Abdom Imaging 2003; 28:668-674.
23. Soyer P, Rabenandrasana A, Barge J, et al. MRI of Budd-Chiari syndrome. Abdom Imaging 1994;19: 325-329.
24. Kim S, Chung JJ, Kim MJ, et al. Atypical inside-out pattern of hepatic hemangiomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174: 1571 -1574.
25. Jang HJ, Choi BI, Kim TK, et al. Atypical small hemangiomas of the liver:‘‘bright dot’’sign at twophase spiral CT. Radiology 1998;208:543-548.
26. Mitsudo K, Watanabe Y, Saga T, et al. Nonenhanced hepatic cavernous hemangioma with multiple calcifications: CT and pathologic correlation. Abdom Imaging 1995; 20: 459-461.
27. Brancatelli G, Federle MP, Grazioli L, et al. Focal nodular hyperplasia: CT findings with emphasis on multiphasic helical CT in 78 patients. Radiology 2001; 219:61-68.
28. Hussain SM, Terkivatan T, Zondervan PE, et al. Focal nodular hyperplasia: findings at state-of-the-art MR imaging, US, CT, and pathologic analysis. Radiographics 2004; 24: 3-17 [discussion 18-19].
29. Ackerman NB, Lien WM, Kondi ES, et al. The blood supply of experimental liver metastases. I. The distribution of hepatic artery and portal vein blood to‘‘small’’and‘‘large’’tumors. Surgery 1969;66: 1067-1072.
30. Itai Y, Moss AA, Goldberg HI. Transient hepatic attenuation difference of lobar or segmental distribution detected by dynamic computed tomography. Radiology 1982; 144: 835-839.
31. Lee SJ, Lim JH, Lee WJ, et al. Transient subsegmental hepatic parenchymal enhancement on dynamic CT: a sign of postbiopsy arterioportal shunt.J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997;21:355-360.
32. Lane MJ, Jeffrey Jr RB, Katz DS. Spontaneous intrahepatic vascular shunts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:125-131.
33. Lim JH, Choi D, Cho SK, et al. Conspicuity of hepatocellular nodular lesions in cirrhotic livers at ferumoxides-enhanced MR imaging: importance of Kupffer cell number. Radiology 2001; 220: 669-676.
34. Itai Y, Matsui O. Blood flow and liver imaging. Radiology 1997; 202: 306-314.
35. Peterson MS, Baron RL, Marsh Jr JW, et al. Pretransplantation surveillance for possible hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: epidemiology and CT-based tumor detection rate in 430 cases with surgical pathologic correlation. Radiology 2000;217: 743-749.
36. Murakami T, Kim T, Takamura M, et al. Hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma: detection with double arterial phase multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology 2001; 218: 763-767.
37. Brancatelli G, Federle MP, Grazioli L, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in noncirrhotic liver: CT, clinical, and pathologic findings in 39 US residents. Radiology 2002; 222:89-94.
2. Sahani D, Mehta A, Blake M, et al. Preoperative hepatic vascular evaluation with CT and MR angiography: implications for surgery. Radio Graphics. 2004; 24: 1367-1380.
3. Soyer P, Bluemke DA, Bliss DF, et al. Surgical Segmental Anatomy of the Liver: Demonstration with Spiral CT During Arterial Portography and Multiplanar Reconstruction. AJR. 1994; 163: 99-103.
4. Soyer P, Roche A, Gad M, et al. Preoperative segmental localization of hepatic metastases: Utility of three-dimensional CT during arterial portography. Radiology. 1991; 180: 653-658.
5. Fasel JHD, Gailloud P, Grossholz M, et al. Relationship between intrahepatic vessels and computer-generated hepatic as issurae: an in vitro assay. Surg Radiol Anat. 1996; 18: 43-46.
6. Nelson RC, Chezmar JL, Sugarbaker PH, et al. Preoperative localization of focal liver lesions to specific liver segments: utility of CT during arterial portography. Radiology. 1990; 176: 89-94.
7. Aytekin O, Eric PT, Janio S. Multidetector row CT of the liver. Radiol Clin N Am. 2005; 43: 827-848.
8. Andrea L. Multidetector CT (64 slices) of the liver: examination techniques. Eur
9. Michels NA. Newer anatomy of the liver and its variant blood supply and collateral circulation. Am J Surg. 1966; 112: 337-347.
10. Takahashi S, Murakami T, Takamura M, et al. Multi-detector row helical CT angiography of hepatic vessels: depiction with dual-arterial phase acquisition during single breath hold. Radiology. 2002; 222: 81-88.
11.林江,陈祖望,周康荣,等.肝内门静脉和肝静脉的解剖和变异(三维动态增强磁共振血管成像分析).中华放射学杂志. 1999; 33: 403-406.
12. Atri M, Bert PM, Fraser-Hill MA. Intrahepatic portal venous variants: prevalence with US. Radiology 1992; 184: 157-158.
13. Soyer P, Bluemke DA, Choti MA, et al. Variations in the intrahepatic portions of the hepatic and portal veins: findings on helical CT scans during arterial portography. AJR. 1995; 164: 103-108.
14. Nakamura S, Tsuzuki T. Surgical anatomy of the hepatic veins and the inferior vena cava. Surgical Gynecol Obstet. 1981; 152:43-50.
15. Lee SS, Kim TK, Byun JH, et al. Hepatic arteries in potential donors for living related liver transplantation: evaluation with multi-detector row CT angiography. Radiology. 2003; 227: 391-399.
16. Sahani D, Saini S, Pena C, et al. Using multi-detector CT for preoperative vascular evaluation of liver neoplasm: technique and results. AJR. 2002; 179:53-59.
17. Covey AM, Brody LA, Maluccio MA, et al. Variant hepatic arteric antomy revisited: digital subtraction angiography performed in 600 patients. Radiology. 2002; 224: 542-547.
18. Michels NA. Blood supply and anatomy of the upper abdominal organs with a descriptive atlas. Philadelphia: Lippincott. 1955; 40.
19. Schroeder T, Radtke A, Kuehl H, et al. Evaluation of living liver donors with an all-inclusive 3D multi-detector row CT protocol. Radiology. 2006; 238: 900-910.
20. Stemmler BJ, Paulson EK, Thornton FJ, et al. Dual-phase 3D MSCT angiography forevaluation of the liver before hepatic resection. AJR. 2004; 183:1551-1557.
21. Alonso-Torres A, Fernández-Cuadrado J, Pinilla I, et al. Multi-detector CT in the evaluation of potential living donors for liver transplantation. Radio Graphics. 2005; 25: 1017-1030.
22. Covey AM, Brody LA,Getrajdman GI, et al. Incidence, patterns, and clinical relevance of variant portal vein anatomy. AJR. 2004; 183: 1055-1064.
23. Akgul E, Inal M, Soyupak S, et al. Portal venous variations: prevalence with contrast enhanced helical CT. Acta Radiol. 2002; 43: 315–319.
24.刘树伟,孙劲文.肝门区门静脉的解剖研究.山东医科大学学报. 1993; 31: 394-396.
25.吕粟,周翔平,陈卫霞,等. 16层螺旋CT上正常人肝内门静脉变异分析.解剖学杂志. 2006; 29:339-341.
26. Makuuchi M, Hasegawa H, Yamazaki S, et al. The inferior right hepatic vein: ultrasonic demonstration. Radiology. 1083; 148: 213-217.
27.刘静,李忠华,王海兴,等.右叶部分肝移植肝静脉的临床应用解剖.中国临床解剖学杂志. 2004; 22: 236-238.
28. Rieker O, Mildenberger P, Hintze C, et al. Segmental anatomy of the liver in computed tomography: do we localize the lesion accurately? Rofo. 2000; 172: 147-52.
29. Winter TC III, Freeny PC, Nghiem HV, et al. Hepatic arterial anatomy in transplantation candidates: evaluation with three-dimensional CT arteriography. Radiology. 1995; 195: 363-370.
30. Erbay N, Raptopoulos V, Pornfret EA, et al. Living donor liver transplantation in adults: vascular variants important in surgical planning for donors and recipients. AJR. 2003; 181: 109-114.
31. Frericks BB, Caldarone FC, Nashan B, et al. 3D CT modeling of hepatic vessel architecture and volume calculation in living donated liver transplantation. Eur. Radiol. 2004; 14: 326-333.
32. Limanond P, Raman SS, Ghobrial RM, et al. Preoperative imaging in adult-to-adultliving related liver transplant donors. J Comput Asisit Tomogr. 2004; 28:149-157.
33. Atasoy C, Ozyürek E. Prevalence and types of main and right portal vein branching variations on MDCT. AJR. 2006; 187: 676-681.
34. Chen WH. Multi-slice spiral CT angiography in evaluating donors of living-related liver transplantation. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2007; 6: 364-369.
35. Schroeder T, Radtke A, Kuehl H, et al. Evaluation of living liver donors with an all-inclusive 3D multi–detector row CT protocol. Radiology. 2006; 238: 900-910.
1. Aytekin O, Eric PT, Janio S. Multidetector row CT of the liver. Radiol Clin N Am.2005, 43: 827-848.
2.张龙江,宋光义,包颜明,等.肝脏血管解剖和变异的多层螺旋CT血管成像研究.中华放射学杂志,2005,39:963-967.
3. Simon A, Ronald M, Jules J. et al. Liver volumetry plug and play: Do it yourself with ImageJ. World J Surg, 2007, 31:2215-2221.
4.潘华锋,陈孝平,邹明丽,等. CT检查预测肝癌手术切除安全性的价值.肝胆外科杂志,2000,8:185-188.
5.胡咏梅,武晓洛,胡志红,等.关于中国人体表面积公式的研究.生理学报,1999; 51: 45-48.
6. Urata K,Kawasaki S ,Matsunami H ,et al. Calculation of child and adult standard liver volume for liver transplantation. Hepatology 1995; 21: 1317-1321.
7.许敏,吴在德,陈孝平等.肝脏外科解剖学及肝段体积的测定.中国普通外科杂志,1996,5:1-2.
8. Van Thiel DH. Hagler NG, Schade RR, et al. In vivo hepatic volume determination using sonography and computed tomography: validation and comparison of the tow techniques. Gastroenterology. 1985, 88:1812-1817.
9. Heymsfield SB, Fulenwider T, Nordingler B, et al. Accurate measurement of liver, kidney and spleen volume and mass by computerized axial tomography. Ann Intern Med. 1979, 90:185-187.
10. Moss AM, Friedman MA, Brito AC, et al. Determination of liver and spleen volume by computed tomography: An experimental study in dogs. T Comput Assist Tomogr. 1981, 5:12-14.
11. Kasi H, Makuuchi M, Kawasaki S, et al. Intraoperative color Doppler ultrasonography for partial-liver transplantation from the living donors in pediatric patients, Transplantation. 1992, 54:173-175.
12. Higashiyama H, Yamaguchi T, Mori K, et al. Graft size assessment by preoperative computed tomography in living-related partial liver transplantation. Br J Surg. 1993, 80: 653-658.
13. Urata K, Kawasaki S, Matsunami H, et al. Calculation of child and adult standard liver volume for liver transplantation. Hepatology. 1995, 21:1317-1321.
14. Schiano TD, Bodian C, Schwartz ME, et al. Accuracy and significance of computed tomographic scan assessment of hepatic volume in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2000.27; 69: 545-50.
15.漆德芳,主编.肝硬化.北京:北京科学技术出版社,2000. 227-241.
16.迟彦邦,主编.实用肝胆外科.石家庄:河北科学技术出版社,1996. 43-89.
17. Mullin EJ, Metcalfe MS, Maddern GJ. How much liver resection is too much? Am J Surg. 2005, 190: 87-97.
18. Pugh RN, Murray-Lyon IM, Dawson JL, et al. Transection of the oesophagus for bleeding oesophageal varices. Br J Surg. 1973, 60: 646-649.
19. Kamath PS, Wiesner RH, Malinchoc M, et al. A Model to Predict Survival in Patients With End-Stage Liver Disease. Hepatology.2001, 33: 464-470.
20. Makuuchi M, Kosuge T, Takayama T, et al. Surgery for small liver cancers. Sem in Surg Oncol. 1993, 9:298-303.
21.涂蓉,罗建光,郑进方,等. CT测量保留肝容积率对肝癌切除术前肝储备功能的评估价值.中华放射医学杂志,2005,39:710-713.
22. Okamoto E, Kyo A, Yamanaka N. Prediction of the safe limits of hepatectomy by combined volumetric and functional measurements in patients with impaired hepatic function. Surgery, 1984, 95: 586-591.
23. Rau HG, Schauer R, Helmberger T, et al. Impact of virtual reality imaging on hepatic liver tumor resection: calculation of risk. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2000,385: 162-170.
24. Shirabe K, ShimadaM, Gion T, et al. Postoperative liver failure after major hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in the modern era with special reference to remnant liver volume. J Am Coll Surg, 1999, 188: 304-309.
25.林科灿,刘景丰.虚拟可视化肝脏在肝脏手术中的应用现状.中华试验外科杂志,2007,10:127-128.
26. Schindl MJ, Redhead DN, Fearon KCH, et al. The value of residual volume as apredictor of hepatic dysfunction and infection after major liver resection. Gut, 2005, 54: 289-296.
27. Fan ST. Live donor liver transplantation in adults. Transplantation. 2006, 82:723-732.
28. Marcos A, Fisher RA, Ham JM, et al. Liver regeneration and function in donor and recipient right lobe adult to adult to living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2000, 69:1375-1379.
29. Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, et al. Safety of donors in live donor liver transplantation using right lobe grafts. Arch Surg. 2000, 135: 336-340.
30. Schiano TD, Bodian C, Schwartz ME, et al. Accuracy and significance of computed tomographic scan assessment of hepatic volume in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Transplantation, 2000, 69: 545-550.
31. Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu C, et al. Extending the limit on the size of adult recipient in living donor liver transplantation using extended right lobe graft. Transplantation, 1997, 63: 1524.
32. Tucker ON, Heaton N, et al. The small of size liver syndrome. Curr Opin Crit Care, 2005, 150.
33.钟林,彭志海.成人活体肝移植面临的困境-小体积移植问题.中华肝脏病杂志, 2004, 9: 188-189.
34. Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL, et al. Minimum graft size for successful living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation, 1999, 68: 1112-1116.
35.秦红波,王学浩,张峰,等.活体肝移植供体的选择与评估.江苏医药杂志, 2005, 31: 42-44.
36.王伯韬,刘云霞,李祎,等. MSCT三维体积测量对肝移植供体肝体积术前测量的研究.中国实验诊断学,2009, 13: 913-915.
1. Marescaux J, Clément JM, Tassetti V, et al. Virtual reality applied to hepatic surgery simulation: the next revolution. Ann Surg. 1998; 228: 627-634.
2. LamadéW, Glombitza G, Fischer L, et al. The impact of 3-dimensional reconstruction on operation planning in liver surgery. Arch Surg. 2000; 135:1256-1261.
3. Vauthey JN, Chaoui A, Do KA, et al. Standardized measurement of the future liver remnant prior to extended liver resection: methodology and clinical associations. Surgery. 2000; 127: 512-519.
4. Yigitler C, Farges O, Kianmanesh R, Regimbeau JM, Belghiti J. The small remnant liver after major liver resection: how common and how relevant? Liver Transpl 2003; 9: S18-S25.
5. Couinaud C. Le Foie: Etudes Anatomique et Chirurgicales. Paris, France: Masson; 1957.
6. Fischer L, Cardenas C, Thorn M, et al. Limits of Couinaud’s liver segment classification: a quantitative computer-based three-dimensional analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2002; 26: 962-967.
7. Selle D, Preim B, Schenk A, Peitgen H-O. Analysis of vasculature for liver surgery planning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging。2002; 21: 1344-1357.
8. Van Ooijen PMA, Wolf R, Schenk A, et al. Recent developments in organ selective reconstruction and analysis of multiphase liver CT. Imaging Decis. 2003; 7: 37-43.
9. Bourquain H, Schenk A, Link F, et al. HepaVision 2: a software assistant for preoperative planning in living-related liver transplantation and oncologic liver surgery. In: Lemke HU, Vannier MW, Inamura K, Farman AG, Doi K, Reiber JHC, eds. CARS 2002: Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery: Proceedings of the 16th International Congress and Exhibition, Paris, June 26-29, 2002. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag NYInc; 2002: 341-346.
10. Yamanaka J, Saito S, Fujimoto J. Impact of preoperative planning using virtual segmental volumetry on liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Surg. 2007; 31: 1249-1255
11. Fuchs J, Warmann SW, Szavay P, et al. Three-dimensional visualization and virtual simulation of resections in pediatric solid tumors. J Pediatr Surg. 2005; 40: 364-370.
12. Togo S, Shimada H, Kanemura E, et al. Usefulness of three-dimensional computed tomography for anatomic liver resection: sub-subsegmentectomy. Surgery 1998: 123:73-78.
13. Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL, Wong J. Hepatic venoplasty in living-donor liver transplantation using right lobe graft with middle hepatic vein. Transplantation 2003; 75: 358-360.
14. MalagóM, Testa G, Frilling A, et al. Right living donor liver transplantation: an option for adult patients: single institution experience with 74 patients. Ann Surg 2003; 238: 853-863.
15. Lang H, Radtke A, Hindennach M, et al. Impact of Virtual tumor resection and computer-assisted risk analysis on operation planning and intraoperative stragegy in major hepatic resection. Arch Surg 2005; 140: 630-638.
16. Maier-Hein L, Pianka F, Seitel A, et al. Precision targeting of liver lesions with a needle-based soft tissue navigation system. Med Image Comput Assist Interv Int Conf Med Image Comput Assist Interv 2007; 10:42-49.
17. Beller S, Hunerbein M, Lange T, et al. Image-guided surgery of liver metastases by three-dimensional ultrasound-based optoelectronic navigation. Br J Surg 2007: 94:866-875.
1. Prokop M. Multislice CT: technical principles and future trends. Eur Radiol 2003; 13 (Suppl 5): M3–M13.
2. Klingenbeck-Regn K, Schaller S, Flohr T, et al. Subsecond multi-slice computed tomography: basics and applications. Eur J Radiol 1999; 31:110–124.
3. Hu H, He HD, Foley WD, Fox SH. Four multidetector-row helical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology 2000; 215:55–62.
4. Prokop. Image processing and display techniques. In: Prokop M, Galanski M (eds) Spiral and multislice computed tomography of the body. Thieme, Stuttgart 2003; pp 131–160.
5. Brink JA. Contrast optimization and scan timing for single- and multidetector-row computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003; 27 Suppl 1: S3–86.
6. Fleischmann D Future prospects in MDCT imaging. Eur Radiol 2003; 13 (Suppl 5): M127–M128.
7. Prokop M. General principles of MDCT. Eur J Radiol 2003; 45: S4–S10.
8. Flohr T, Stierstorfer K, Bruder H, Simon J, Schaller S. New technical developments in multislice CT. Part 1: approaching isotropic resolution with sub-millimeter 16-slice scanning. R?Fo Fortschr R?ntgenstr 2002; 174: 839–845.
9. Oto A, Tamm EP, Szklaruk J. Multidetector row CT of the liver. Radiol Clin N Am. 2005; 43: 827–848.
10. Pandharipande PV, Krinsky GA, Rusinek H, Lee VS. Perfusion imaging of the liver: current challenges and future goals. Radiology 2005; 234: 661–673.
11. Platten D, Keat N, Lewis M, Edyvean S. Report 05068. 32 to 64 slice CT scanner comparison report version 13. ImPACT, Purchasing and Supply Agency 2005; 1–23.
12. Flohr TG, Stierstorfer K, Ulzheimer S, et al. Image reconstruction and image quality evaluation for a 64-slice CT scanner with z-flying focal spot. Med Phys 2005; 32(8): 2536–2547.
13. Abdelmoumene A, Chevallier P, Chalaron M, et al. Detection of liver metastases under 2 cm: comparison of different acquisition protocols in four row multidetector-CT(MDCT). Eur Radiol 2005; 15(9): 1881–1887.
14. Fenchel S, Fleiter TR, Merkle EM. Multislice helical CT of the abdomen. Eur Radiol 2002; 12 (Suppl 2): S5–S10.
15. Mulkens TH, Bellinck P, Baeyaert M, et al. Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multi-detector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation. Radiology 2005; 237(1): 213–223.
16. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 2004; 233(3): 649–657.
17. Foley WD, Mallisee TA, Hohenwalter MD, et al. Multiphase hepatic CT with a multirow detector CT scanner. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175:679–685.
18. Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Rossi P, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: detection with triple-phase multidetector row CT in patients with chronic hepatitis. Radiology 2003; 226: 543–549.
19. Murakami T, Kim T, Takamura M, et al. Hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma: detection with double arterial phase multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology 2001; 218: 763–767.
20. Itoh S, Ikeda M, Achiwa M, Satake H, Iwano S, Ishigaki T. Late-arterial and portal-venous phase imaging of the liver with a multislice CT scanner in patients without circulatory disturbances: automatic bolus tracking or empirical scan delay? Eur Radiol 2004; 14 (9): 1665–1673.
21. Fleischmann D. Use of highconcentration contrast media in multiple-detector-row CT: principles and rationale. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: M14–M20.
22. Kim T, Murakami T, Takahashi S, et al. Effects of injection rates of contrast material on arterial phase hepatic CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171 (2): 429–432.
23. Awai K, Takada K, Onishi H, et al. Aortic and hepatic enhancement and tumor to liver contrast: analysis of the effect of different concentrations of contrast material at multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology 2002; 224:757–763.
24. MarchianòA. MDCT of Primary liver malignancies. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: M26-M30.
25. Suzuki H, Oshima H, Shiraki N, Ikeya C, Shibamoto Y. Comparison of two contrastmaterials with different iodine concentrations in enhancing the density of the the aorta, portal vein and liver at multi-detector row CT: a randomized study. Eur Radiol 2004;14 (11): 2099–2104.
26. Schoellnast H, Tillich M, Deutschmann HA, et al. Improvement of parenchymal and vascular enhancement using saline flush and power injection for multiple-detector-row abdominal CT. Eur Radiol 2004; 14(4): 659–664.
27. Dorio PJ, Lee FT Jr, Henseler KP, et al. Shock SA. Using a saline chaser to decrease contrast media in abdominal CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180:929–934.
28. Rubin GD. Data explosion: the challenge of multidetector-row CT. Eur J Radiol 2000, 36:74–80.
29. Kamel IR, Georgiades C, Fishman EK. Incremental value of advanced image processing of multislice computed tomography data in the evaluation of hypervascular liver lesions. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003; 27:652–656.
30. Raptopoulos V, Kataoka M, Siewert B, Goldberg SN; Sheiman R, Kruskal J. Clinically perceived value of routine coronal and sagittal multiplanar reconstructions in abdominal CT scans: increased value with increased detectorrows from 4- to 64-row MDCT. Radiology (p) 296 abstract
31. Sahani D, Krishnamurthy S, Kalva S, et al. Multidetector-row computed tomography angiography for planning intra-arterial chemotherapy pump placement in patients with colorectal metastases to the liver. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004; 28: 478–484.
32. Guiney MJ, Kruskal JB, Sosna J, et al. Multi-detector row CT of relevant vascular anatomy of the surgical plane in split-liver transplantation. Radiology 2003; 229: 401–407.
33. Schroeder T, Nadalin S, Stattaus J, et al. Potential living liver donors: evaluation with an all-in-one protocol with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2002; 224: 586–591.
34. Becker CD. Multidetector CT and MRI of biliary diseases. J Radiol 2003; 84: 473–479.
35. Abdalla EK, Denys A, Chevalier P, et al. Total and segmental liver volume variations: implications for liver surgery. Surgery 2004; 135: 404–410.
36. Lang H, Radtke A, Hindennach M, et al. Impact of virtual tumor resection and computer-assisted risk analysis on operation planning and intraoperative strategy in major hepatic resection. Arch Surg 2005; 140(7):629–638.
37. Meier S, Schenk A, Mildenberger P, et al. Evaluation of a new software tool for the automatic volume calculation of hepatic tumors. First results. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 2004; 176:234–238.
38. Castillo OA, Keriakos K, Stinchon JF, Jara H, Soto JA. Automated liver segmentation and volume calculation from MDCT data sets using a dualclustering technique: comparison with planimetry. Radiology 2005; (p) 509 abstract.
39. Blomley MJK, Coulden R, Dawson P, et al. Liver perfusion studied with ultrafast CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1995;19: 424–433.
40. Guan S, Zhao WD, Zhou KR, Peng WJ, Mao J, Tang F. CT perfusion at early stage of hepatic diffuse disease. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11 (22): 3465–3467.
41. Nakashige A, Horiguchi J, Tamura A, et al. Quantitative measurement of hepatic portal perfusion by multidetector row CT with compensation for respiratory misregistration. Br J Radiol 2004; 77: 728–734.
42. Weidekamm C, Cejna M, Kramer L, Peck-Radosavljevic M, Bader TR. Effects of TIPS on liver perfusion measured by dynamic CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 505–510.
43. Holalkere NS, Sahani DV, Zhu AX, Setty BN, Muller PR. CT perfusion in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): an initial experience. Radiology 2005; (p) 327.
44. Fabiano S, Squillaci E, Carlani M, et al. CT perfusion studies of liver lesions with a 64-detector row scanner: initial clinical results. Radiology 2005; (p) 837 abstract.
45. Tsushima Y, Funabasama S, Aoki J, et al. Quantitative perfusion map of malignant liver tumors, created for dynamic computed tomography data. Acad Radiol 2004; 11:215–222 abstract.
1. Foley WD, Mallisee TA, Hohenwalter MD, et al.Multiphase hepatic CT with a multirow detector CT scanner. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175:679-685.
2. Ji H, McTavish JD, Mortele KJ, et al. Hepatic imaging with multidetector CT. Radiographics 2001; 21 Spec No:S71-80.
3. Hu H, He HD, Foley WD, et al. Four multidetectorrow helical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology 2000; 215: 55-62.
4. Hu H, He DH, Foley DW, et al. Four multidetectorrow helical CT: image quality andvolume coverage speed. Radiology 2000; 215:55-62.
5. Spielmann AL, Nelson RC, Lowry CR, et al. Liver: single breath-hold dynamic subtraction CT with multidetector row helical technology feasibility study. Radiology 2002;222:278-283.
6. Nakashige A, Horiguichi J, Tamura A, et al. Quantitative measurement of hepatic portal perfusion by multidetector row CT with compensation for respiratory misregistration. Br J Radiol 2004; 77: 728-734.
7. Leslie DF, Johnson CD, Johnson CM, et al. Distinction between cavernous hemangiomas of the liver and hepatic metastases on CT: value of contrast enhancement patterns. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164: 625-629.
8. Sahani D, Saini S, Pena C, et al. Using multidetector CT for preoperative vascular evaluation of liver neoplasms: technique and results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 53-59.
9. Kapoor V, Brancatelli G, Federle MP, et al. Multidetector CT arteriography with volumetric threedimensional rendering to evaluate patients with metastatic colorectal disease for placement of a floxuridine infusion pump. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 455-463.
10. Shanley CJ, Shah NL, Messina LM. Common splanchnic artery aneurysms: splenic, hepatic, and celiac. Ann Vasc Surg 1996;10: 315-322.
11. Katyal S, Oliver JH, Peterson MS, et al. Prognostic ignificance of arterial phase CT for prediction of response to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175: 1665-1672.
12. Quiroga S, Sebastia C, Pallisa E, et al. Improved diagnosis of hepatic perfusion disorders: value of hepatic arterial phase imaging during helical CT. Radiographics 2001; 21: 65-81 [questionnaire 288–94].
13. Gates J, Hartnell GG, Stuart KE, et al. Chemoembolization of hepatic neoplasms: safety, complications, and when to worry. Radiographics 1999; 19: 399-414.
14. Smith GS, Birnbaum BA, Jacobs JE. Hepatic infarction secondary to arterial insufficiency in native livers: CT findings in 10 patients. Radiology 1998; 208: 223-229.
15. Holbert BL, Baron RL, Dodd 3rd GD. Hepatic infarction caused by arterial insufficiency: spectrum and evolution of CT findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166: 815-820.
16. Brancatelli G, Katyal S, Federle MP, et al. Threedimensional multislice helical computed tomography with the volume rendering technique in the detection of vascular complications after liver transplantation. Transplantation 2002; 73:2 37-242.
17. Quiroga S, Sebastia MC, Margarit C, et al. Complications of orthotopic liver transplantation: spectrum of findings with helical CT. Radiographics 2001;21: 1085-1102.
18. Cheng YF, Huang TL, Lee TY, et al. Variation of the intrahepatic portal vein; angiographic demonstration and application in living-related hepatic transplantation. Transplant Proc 1996; 28: 1667-1668.
19. Kamel IR, Kruskal JB, Pomfret EA, et al. Impact of multidetector CT on donor selection and surgical planning before living adult right lobe liver transplantation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176: 193-200.
20. Pannu HK, Maley WR, Fishman EK. Liver transplantation: preoperative CT evaluation. Radiographics 2001; 21 Spec no:S133-146.
21. Quiroga S, Sebastia MC, Margarit C, et al. Complications of orthotopic liver transplantation: spectrum of findings with helical CT. Radiographics 2001;21: 1085–102.
22. Kamel IR, Lawler LP, Fishman EK. Variations in anatomy of the middle hepatic vein and their impact on formal right hepatectomy. Abdom Imaging 2003; 28:668-674.
23. Soyer P, Rabenandrasana A, Barge J, et al. MRI of Budd-Chiari syndrome. Abdom Imaging 1994;19: 325-329.
24. Kim S, Chung JJ, Kim MJ, et al. Atypical inside-out pattern of hepatic hemangiomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174: 1571 -1574.
25. Jang HJ, Choi BI, Kim TK, et al. Atypical small hemangiomas of the liver:‘‘bright dot’’sign at twophase spiral CT. Radiology 1998;208:543-548.
26. Mitsudo K, Watanabe Y, Saga T, et al. Nonenhanced hepatic cavernous hemangioma with multiple calcifications: CT and pathologic correlation. Abdom Imaging 1995; 20: 459-461.
27. Brancatelli G, Federle MP, Grazioli L, et al. Focal nodular hyperplasia: CT findings with emphasis on multiphasic helical CT in 78 patients. Radiology 2001; 219:61-68.
28. Hussain SM, Terkivatan T, Zondervan PE, et al. Focal nodular hyperplasia: findings at state-of-the-art MR imaging, US, CT, and pathologic analysis. Radiographics 2004; 24: 3-17 [discussion 18-19].
29. Ackerman NB, Lien WM, Kondi ES, et al. The blood supply of experimental liver metastases. I. The distribution of hepatic artery and portal vein blood to‘‘small’’and‘‘large’’tumors. Surgery 1969;66: 1067-1072.
30. Itai Y, Moss AA, Goldberg HI. Transient hepatic attenuation difference of lobar or segmental distribution detected by dynamic computed tomography. Radiology 1982; 144: 835-839.
31. Lee SJ, Lim JH, Lee WJ, et al. Transient subsegmental hepatic parenchymal enhancement on dynamic CT: a sign of postbiopsy arterioportal shunt.J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997;21:355-360.
32. Lane MJ, Jeffrey Jr RB, Katz DS. Spontaneous intrahepatic vascular shunts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:125-131.
33. Lim JH, Choi D, Cho SK, et al. Conspicuity of hepatocellular nodular lesions in cirrhotic livers at ferumoxides-enhanced MR imaging: importance of Kupffer cell number. Radiology 2001; 220: 669-676.
34. Itai Y, Matsui O. Blood flow and liver imaging. Radiology 1997; 202: 306-314.
35. Peterson MS, Baron RL, Marsh Jr JW, et al. Pretransplantation surveillance for possible hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: epidemiology and CT-based tumor detection rate in 430 cases with surgical pathologic correlation. Radiology 2000;217: 743-749.
36. Murakami T, Kim T, Takamura M, et al. Hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma: detection with double arterial phase multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology 2001; 218: 763-767.
37. Brancatelli G, Federle MP, Grazioli L, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in noncirrhotic liver: CT, clinical, and pathologic findings in 39 US residents. Radiology 2002; 222:89-94.