» Articles » PMID: 38668420

Body Weight As a Preferred Method for Normalizing the Computed Tomography-Derived Liver Volume in Dogs Without Hepatic Disease

Overview
Journal Vet Sci
Publisher MDPI
Date 2024 Apr 26
PMID 38668420
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The assessment of liver size is usually performed using radiography in dogs. However, due to wide variations in patients' sizes and body conformations, accurate diagnosis of hepatomegaly or microhepatia is difficult. Computed tomographic (CT) volumetry can quantitatively and accurately measure liver volume. However, a reliable method for the standardization or normalization of volume in dogs without hepatic disease using CT has not yet been established. The purpose of this study was to assess seven different anatomic measures for normalizing liver volume in dogs and determine the tentative range of liver volume in dogs without hepatic disease. We retrospectively searched medical records from 1 January 2017 through to 1 June 2020 and included dogs with abdominal computed tomography without hepatic disease. The liver volume, lengths of four vertebrae (T11, T12, L2, L3), diameter of the abdominal aorta, body weight, and body condition scores (BCSs) of the dogs were recorded. Forty-one client-owned dogs without evidence of hepatic disease were included. The CT-derived liver volume was 813.8 ± 326.5 cm (mean ± SD). Body weight was determined to be the most reliable single-variable method for normalizing liver volume, with a raw CT-derived liver-volume-to-body-weight ratio of 22.1 cm/kg (95% CI: 12.9-31.3 cm/kg) and regression prediction model of volume = 19 × BWkg + 97. However, a better normalizing factor would likely be provided by the fat-free mass if it can be accurately measured.

Citing Articles

Hepatic parenchymal hypoattenuation in dogs with diabetes mellitus on computed tomography consistent with hepatic steatosis.

Buckley C, Fulkerson C, Derre M, Woolcock A, Murakami M Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2024; 66(1):e13464.

PMID: 39681993 PMC: 11649884. DOI: 10.1111/vru.13464.


A Reference Interval for CT-Based Liver Volume in Dogs without Hepatic Disease.

Nishi R, Moore G, Murakami M Vet Sci. 2024; 11(9).

PMID: 39330778 PMC: 11435558. DOI: 10.3390/vetsci11090400.


Computed Tomographic Hepatic Volumetry in Dogs with Congenital Portosystemic Shunts.

Kurihara H, Moore G, Murakami M Vet Sci. 2024; 11(9).

PMID: 39330769 PMC: 11436197. DOI: 10.3390/vetsci11090390.

References
1.
An G, Kwon D, Yoon H, Yu J, Bang S, Lee Y . Evaluation of the radiographic liver length/11th thoracic vertebral length ratio as a method for quantifying liver size in cats. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2019; 60(6):640-647. DOI: 10.1111/vru.12803. View

2.
Kiuchi T, Kasahara M, Uryuhara K, Inomata Y, Uemoto S, Asonuma K . Impact of graft size mismatching on graft prognosis in liver transplantation from living donors. Transplantation. 1999; 67(2):321-7. DOI: 10.1097/00007890-199901270-00024. View

3.
Schiano T, Bodian C, Schwartz M, Glajchen N, Min A . Accuracy and significance of computed tomographic scan assessment of hepatic volume in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2000; 69(4):545-50. DOI: 10.1097/00007890-200002270-00014. View

4.
Choi J, Keh S, Kim H, Kim J, Yoon J . Radiographic liver size in Pekingese dogs versus other dog breeds. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2012; 54(2):103-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2012.01992.x. View

5.
Johnson T, Tucker G, Tanner M, Rostami-Hodjegan A . Changes in liver volume from birth to adulthood: a meta-analysis. Liver Transpl. 2005; 11(12):1481-93. DOI: 10.1002/lt.20519. View