How many CT detector rows are necessary to perform adequate three dimensional visualization?

[Liver transection: modern procedure: Technique, results and costs]

Liver resection has developed into the current standard procedure due to modern resection techniques, profound knowledge of the liver anatomy and optimized surgical and anesthesiological strategies to allow extended resections with both low morbidity and mortality. Initially major blood loss was the biggest concern with liver resection and a Pringle's manoeuvre was necessary. Nowadays, biliary leakage is the major problem after liver surgery. Besides the classical conventional clamp crushing technique for parenchymal transection, various devices including ultrasound, microwaves and staplers have been introduced. Minimally invasive techniques have become increasingly important for liver resection but are still applied in selected patients only. The selection of the resection technique and device mainly depends on the extent of the resection and also on the liver parenchyma, the liver disease, costs, personal experiences and preferences. This article presents a selection of techniques used in modern parenchymal transection during liver resection with special focus on transection time, blood loss, bile leakage and costs.

Accuracy of estimation of graft size for living-related liver transplantation: first results of a semi-automated interactive software for CT-volumetry

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate accuracy of estimated graft size for living-related liver transplantation using a semi-automated interactive software for CT-volumetry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixteen donors for living-related liver transplantation (11 male; mean age: 38.2±9.6 years) underwent contrast-enhanced CT prior to graft removal. CT-volumetry was performed using a semi-automated interactive software (P), and compared with a manual commercial software (TR). For P, liver volumes were provided either with or without vessels. For TR, liver volumes were provided always with vessels. Intraoperative weight served as reference standard. Major study goals included analyses of volumes using absolute numbers, linear regression analyses and inter-observer agreements. Minor study goals included the description of the software workflow: degree of manual correction, speed for completion, and overall intuitiveness using five-point Likert scales: 1--markedly lower/faster/higher for P compared with TR, 2--slightly lower/faster/higher for P compared with TR, 3--identical for P and TR, 4--slightly lower/faster/higher for TR compared with P, and 5--markedly lower/faster/higher for TR compared with P.

RESULTS

Liver segments II/III, II-IV and V-VIII served in 6, 3, and 7 donors as transplanted liver segments. Volumes were 642.9±368.8 ml for TR with vessels, 623.8±349.1 ml for P with vessels, and 605.2±345.8 ml for P without vessels (P<0.01). Regression equations between intraoperative weights and volumes were y = 0.94x+30.1 (R2 = 0.92; P<0.001) for TR with vessels, y = 1.00x+12.0 (R2 = 0.92; P<0.001) for P with vessels, and y = 1.01x+28.0 (R2 = 0.92; P<0.001) for P without vessels. Inter-observer agreement showed a bias of 1.8 ml for TR with vessels, 5.4 ml for P with vessels, and 4.6 ml for P without vessels. For the degree of manual correction, speed for completion and overall intuitiveness, scale values were 2.6±0.8, 2.4±0.5 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS

CT-volumetry performed with P can predict accurately graft size for living-related liver transplantation while improving workflow compared with TR.

Regular three-dimensional presentations improve in the identification of surgical liver anatomy - a randomized study

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional (3D) presentations enhance the understanding of complex anatomical structures. However, it has been shown that two dimensional (2D) "key views" of anatomical structures may suffice in order to improve spatial understanding. The impact of real 3D images (3Dr) visible only with 3D glasses has not been examined yet. Contrary to 3Dr, regular 3D images apply techniques such as shadows and different grades of transparency to create the impression of 3D.This randomized study aimed to define the impact of both the addition of key views to CT images (2D+) and the use of 3Dr on the identification of liver anatomy in comparison with regular 3D presentations (3D).

METHODS

A computer-based teaching module (TM) was used. Medical students were randomized to three groups (2D+ or 3Dr or 3D) and asked to answer 11 anatomical questions and 4 evaluative questions. Both 3D groups had animated models of the human liver available to them which could be moved in all directions.

RESULTS

156 medical students (57.7% female) participated in this randomized trial. Students exposed to 3Dr and 3D performed significantly better than those exposed to 2D+ (p < 0.01, ANOVA). There were no significant differences between 3D and 3Dr and no significant gender differences (p > 0.1, t-test). Students randomized to 3D and 3Dr not only had significantly better results, but they also were significantly faster in answering the 11 anatomical questions when compared to students randomized to 2D+ (p < 0.03, ANOVA). Whether or not "key views" were used had no significant impact on the number of correct answers (p > 0.3, t-test).

CONCLUSION

This randomized trial confirms that regular 3D visualization improve the identification of liver anatomy.

Teaching on three-dimensional presentation does not improve the understanding of according CT images: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Randomized studies have already described the advantages of three dimensional (3D) presentations in understanding complex spatial interactions. However, the clinical setting is mainly characterized by presentations of two dimensional (2D) images.

PURPOSE

This study evaluates whether training on 3D presentation enhances the understanding of 2D images.

METHODS

A teaching module was used consisting of one learning part and two examination parts (EP). Students were randomized to training with either 2D or 3D.

RESULTS

This study of 73 students showed that training on 3D presentations did not improve the ability to interpret 2D images. Further, the results revealed no significant differences between the results of Week 1 (2D: M = 6.5, SD = 1.8; 3D: M = 6.6, SD = 1.4; p > .95) and Week 2 (2D: M = 6.1, SD = 1.9; 3D: M = 6.0, SD = 1.4; p > .7). There were no significant gender differences. However, students randomized to 2D who completed only the first EP performed significantly worse if compared to students who completed both EP ( p = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized controlled study shows that correct interpretation of 2D imaging does not differ in students trained with either 3D or 2D.