Liver Volume Estimation in North Indian Population Using CT Volumetry Method

Abstract Background: Evaluation of chronic liver disease, planning of liver resection, and hepatic transplantation all rely on accurate liver volume assessment. An accurate and non-invasive method for measuring liver volume is computed tomography (CT) volumetry. "The purpose of this study was to determine the liver volume reference values in the North Indian population using computed tomography (CT). With these values, we could next examine the relationship between liver volume and age, sex, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and other body measurements. Lastly, we could see if the current SLV formulas worked for this population. Methods: One hundred adults (all 18 and up) got contrast-enhanced CT scans for reasons other than hepatobiliary issues as part of a prospective observational research at HIMSR—New Delhi. A semi-automated method was used to do the liver volumetry. We took note of anthropometric and demographic data, such as height, weight, gender, body mass index (BMI), waist size, and body surface area (BSA). The associations between liver volume and the variables under consideration were investigated using a correlation analysis. Using the Chandramohan, Urata, and Heinemann formulae, the volumes measured by CT were compared with the estimated SLV volumes. Results: There was an equal distribution of genders in the study population, with 52% females and 48% males, and an average age of 40.92 ± 16.67 years. The range for the mean CT-measured liver volume was 1023.20-3251.70 cm³, with a standard deviation of 552.77 cm³. There was a notable negative relationship between liver volume and age (r=-0.229, p=0.022), with volumes falling from 1888.7 ± 621.0 cm³ in those aged 40 and under to 1453.6 ± 265.4 cm³ in those aged 60 and above. At 2029.5 ± 597.8 cm³ versus 1518.4 ± 368.8 cm³, p<0.001, males showed noticeably bigger liver sizes than females. Weight (r=0.690, p=0.003) and body mass index (r=0.616, p<0.001) showed strong positive relationships. Although all three previous formulas had significant variations from actual CT measurements, the Chandramohan formula demonstrated the strongest association with CT volume (r=0.764, p=0.001), followed by the Heinemann formula (r=0.720, p=0.006) and Urata (r=0.684, p=0.003). Conclusion: Liver volume reference values for the North Indian population were determined in this study, which also found strong relationships with anthropometric variables such as age and gender. To enhance practical applications in transplantation and surgical planning, region-specific formulas are necessary, as none of the current SLV formulas correctly predicted liver volume in this group.