Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Precise evaluation of the live donor's liver is the most important factor for the donor's safety and the recipient's prognosis in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Our study assessed the clinical value of computer-assisted three-dimensional quantitative assessment and a surgical planning tool for donor evaluation in LDLT.
Methods: Computer-assisted three-dimensional (3D) quantitative assessment was used to prospectively provide quantitative assessment of the graft volume for 123 consecutive donors of LDLT and its accuracy and efficiency were compared with that of the standard manual-traced method. A case of reduced monosegmental LDLT was also assessed and a surgical planning tool displayed the precise surgical plan to avoid large-for-size syndrome.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the detected graft volumes with computer-assisted 3D quantitative assessment and manual-traced approaches ((856.76 ± 162.18) cm(3) vs. (870.64 ± 172.54) cm(3), P = 0.796). Estimated volumes by either method had good correlation with the actual graft weight (r-manual-traced method: 0.921, r-3D quantitative assessment method: 0.896, both P < 0.001). However, the computer-assisted 3D quantitative assessment approach was significantly more efficient taking half the time of the manual-traced method ((16.91 ± 1.375) minutes vs. (39.27 ± 2.102) minutes, P < 0.01) to estimate graft volume. We performed the reduced monosegmental LDLT, a pediatric case, with the surgical planning tool (188 g graft in the operation, which was estimated at 208 cm(3) pre-operation). The recipient recovered without large-for-size syndrome.
Conclusions: Computer-assisted 3D quantitative assessment provided precise evaluation of the graft volume. It also assisted surgeons with a better understanding of the hepatic 3D anatomy and was useful for the individual surgical planning tool.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!