COMPARISON OF LIVER VOLUMETRY USING MANUAL COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY VOLUMETRY AND STANDARD LIVER VOLUME FORMULA

Abstract

Objective: To compare liver volumes measured by manual computed tomography (CT) volumetry with those estimated using a standard liver volume (SLV) formula incorporating body thickness and weight and to assess the accuracy and correlation between the two methods.

Materials and Methods: This was a Descriptive cross-sectional study conducted in the department of Diagnostic Radiology, Doctor’s Hospital and Medical Centre, Lahore. This study was carried out for six months from October 2025 to March 2026. A total of 195 adult patients aged 18–65 years undergoing abdominal CT for non-hepatobiliary indications were included using non-probability sampling. Patients with known liver pathology, abnormal liver or renal function tests or contraindications to CT were excluded. CT scans were performed using a 160-slice Toshiba Aquilion Prime scanner. Total liver volume (TLV) was calculated using manual CT volumetry by summation of area method, excluding intrahepatic vessels. Standard liver volume (SLV) was estimated using the formula: SLV = (2 × body thickness + 10 × weight + 190). Data was analyzed using SPSS version 22, and Pearson correlation coefficient (R²) was used to assess agreement between SLV and CT-derived TLV.

Results: The mean age of patients was 41.47 ± 13.79 years, and mean body weight was 70.69 ± 11.41 kg. A strong positive correlation was observed between SLV and CT-derived TLV (R² = 0.69, p < 0.001). However, SLV consistently underestimated liver volume compared to CT measurements. Stratified analysis showed significant differences across age and weight groups (p < 0.05), with increasing discrepancy observed in higher body weight categories.

Conclusion: Although SLV formula demonstrates a strong correlation with CT-derived liver volume, it tends to underestimate actual liver size. CT volumetry remains the most accurate method for liver volume assessment and should be preferred for preoperative evaluation in liver surgery and transplantation while SLV formulas may serve as a convenient alternative in routine clinical settings.