Loading…

A simplified CT‐volumetry method for the canine liver

Computed tomographic (CT) liver volumetry using the slice addition technique is an accurate, but a time‐consuming method. Commonly used DICOM‐viewing software only allows contouring of one area per image, which can be troublesome in the transverse plane as different lobes are separated. In this pros...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Veterinary radiology & ultrasound 2022-01, Vol.63 (1), p.47-53
Main Authors: Israeliantz, Nicolas, Lodzinska, Joanna, Woods, Glynn, Pontes, Joana, Parys, Maciej, Schwarz, Tobias
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Computed tomographic (CT) liver volumetry using the slice addition technique is an accurate, but a time‐consuming method. Commonly used DICOM‐viewing software only allows contouring of one area per image, which can be troublesome in the transverse plane as different lobes are separated. In this prospective, experimental, methods comparison study, we aimed to determine if hepatic contouring using sagittal reformatting and a reduced number of images would yield accurate results. Computed tomographic studies were performed in five canine cadavers and reviewed using sagittal reformatting. For each dog, the number of images that included the liver was used to create four stacks with progressively fewer images in which the liver would be contoured, each with the following median number of images: A: 60, B: 31, C: 16, and D: 9. Liver volume was calculated by three observers using the different stacks of images. After CT examination, the cadavers were dissected, the liver was removed, and its volume was determined by water displacement. Single score intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to assess interobserver agreement. Kruskal‐Wallis test was used to compare water displacement and CT‐based volumes. There was excellent agreement between observers (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.957; 95% confidence interval, 0.908‐0.982, P 
ISSN:1058-8183
1740-8261
DOI:10.1111/vru.13018