New formula for predicting standard liver volume in Chinese adults

Table 1 Physical characteristics and computed tomography estimated total liver volume in Chinese healthy adults

	Total, n = 244	Male, n = 138	Female, n = 106	P value
Age, yr	48.8 ± 12.00 (18-88)	49.4 ± 11.59 (18-81)	48.0 ± 12.49 (18-88)	0.355
Body height, cm	167.29 ± 7.14 (148-185)	172.10 ± 4.95 (156-185)	161.04 ± 4.04 (148-172)	< 0.001
Body weight, kg	65.41 ± 10.92 (38-96)	70.86 ± 9.35 (49-96)	58.32 ± 8.47 (38-80)	< 0.001
BMI, kg/m2)	23.29 ± 3.06 (15.63-35.16)	23.91 ± 2.95 (17.16-35.16)	22.47 ± 3.02 (15.63-30.04)	< 0.001
BSA, m2	1.74 ± 0.17 (1.25-2.21)	1.84 ± 0.13 (1.47-2.21)	1.61 ± 0.13 (1.25-1.94)	< 0.001
CTLV, cm3	1194.31 ± 238.25 (593.80-2250.10)	1268.32 ± 228.09 (815.10-2250.10)	1097.96 ± 216.60 (593.80-2005.80)	< 0.001

BMI: Body mass index; BSA: Body surface area; CTLV: Computed tomography estimated total liver volume.

Table 2 Computed tomography estimated total splenic volume, portal venous diameter, splenic venous diameter and portal venous cross-sectional area in Chinese healthy adults

	Total, n = 244	Male, n = 138	Female, n = 106	P value
CTSV, in cm3	210.48 ± 224.07 (46.60-2892.30)	213.91 ± 172.76 (46.60-1490.30)	206.02 ± 277.87 (65.00-2892.30)	0.786
PVD, in mm	9.34 ± 1.5 (5.60-16.25)	9.84 ± 1.56 (6.10-16.25)	8.27 ± 1.23 (5.60-12.95)	< 0.001
SVD, in mm	7.40 ± 1.31 (3.20-12.50)	7.61 ± 2.95 (4.70-12.50)	7.17 ± 3.02 (3.20-10.50)	0.278
PVCSA, mm2	173.22 ± 48.11 (92.22-451.00)	189.63 ± 50.88 (101.91-451.00)	153.74 ± 36.16 (92.22-253.34)	< 0.001

CTSV: Computed tomography estimated total splenic volume; PVCSA: Portal venous cross-sectional area; PVD: Portal venous diameter; SVD: Splenic venous diameter.

Table 3 Related factors to computed tomography estimated total liver volume

Factor	r value	P value
Age	-0.117	0.067
Sex	0.355	< 0.001
BH	0.421	< 0.001
BW	0.534	< 0.001
BMI	0.416	< 0.001
BSA	0.546	< 0.001

BH: Body height; BMI: Body mass index; BSA: Body surface area; BW: Body weight.

Table 4 Differences between total liver volume and standard liver volume approximated by various formulas

Study	Mean SLV-TLV, in cm3	Mean error, as %	P value	Root of the mean PRESS	ICC
Urata et al[11], 1995	37.45	6.95	0.066	225.72	0.668
Johnson et al[23], 2005	232.94	22.92	< 0.001	216.79	0.668
Poovathumkadavil et al[19], 2010	169.96	10.82	< 0.001	216.67	0.686
Lin et al[24], 1998	271.54	25.74	< 0.001	225.40	0.652
Chan et al[25], 20061,2	-165.31	-10.82	< 0.001	216.60	0.686
Yuan et al[26], 20083	104.16	11.72	< 0.001	216.03	0.672
Fu-Gui et al[27], 2009	-103.28	-5.35	< 0.001	218.85	0.686
Our new SLV, 2016	8.10	4.17	0.680	219.43	0.679

¹The formula can be directly converted into TLV from liver weight because liver density is 1 g/mL;

²Sex factor: male = 1 and female = 2;

³Age factor: < 40 yr = 1, 41-60 yr = 2, and > 60 yr = 3. SLV: Standard liver volume; TLV: Total liver volume.

Table 5 Proportions of estimated standard liver volume with percentage errors within acceptable agreement (10% and 15%) in comparison with total liver volume

Study	Proportion within acceptable agreement, as %
	± 15%	± 10%
Urata et al[11], 1995	57.6	20.8
Johnson et al[23], 2005	30.4	23.2
Poovathumkadavil et al[19], 2010	44.8	29.6
Lin et al[24], 1998	29.6	17.6
Chan et al[25], 20061,2	52.8	30.4
Yuan et al[26], 20083	59.2	36.0
Fu-Gui et al[27], 2009	58.4	42.4
SLVn, 2016	60.8	44.0

Table 6 Factors related to the difference between computed tomography estimated total liver volume and standard liver volume calculated by the new formula

Factor	n	TLV, in cm3	SLV-TLV, in cm3
Total	369	1205.41 ± 257.53
Sex
Male	219	1285.64 ± 252.27	-1.82 ± 218.70
Female	150	1088.27 ± 217.76a	9.40 ± 187.04
Age, in yr
18-30	14	1143.50 ± 192.33	-16.51 ± 122.80
30-50	184	1217.30 ± 259.75	-7.06 ± 210.37
50-70	158	1211.43 ± 263.84	4.52 ± 209.63
> 70	13	1030.55 ± 118.18a	140.69 ± 124.56a
BMI, in kg/m2
< 18.5	19	973.94 ± 163.74	4.65 ± 138.26
18.5-24.9	250	1162.63 ± 231.54a	12.70 ± 197.74
≥ 25	100	1356.33 ± 262.51a	-22.50 ± 235.32

^aP < 0.05. BMI: Body mass index; SLV: Standard liver volume; TLV: Total liver volume.