• Online ISSN : 2313-1519
  • Print    ISSN : 1812-2892
Abstract - Comparing computerized tomography indices and liver biopsy in liver transplantation donors for hepatosteatosis
< Back
Genco Gencdal, Utku Alkara, Murat Akyildiz


Background: Selecting the right donor to achieve a successful liver transplantation is very important; thus computerized tomography and liver biopsy are frequently applied in the diagnosis of steatosis in donors.

Purpose: We sought to investigate the efficacy of computerized tomography in the evaluation of hepatosteatosis in living donor liver transplantation donors.

Material and methods: The living donor liver transplantation cases between January 2015 and December 2017 were screened retrospectively. The study participants were divided into three groups according to the degree of steatosis determined during LB as follows: grade 0: less than 5%, grade 1: 6% to 20%, and grade 2: greater than 20%. Using computerized tomography scans, hepatic attenuation value (CTL), hepatic attenuation value and spleen attenuation value ratio (CTL/S), and the difference between hepatic attenuation value and splenic attenuation values (CTL−S) were determined and the correlations of these indices and the findings of LB were compared.

Results: Of the 60 patients (42 males, mean age: 32.4±7.7 years), 43 had grade 0, 15 had grade 1, and two had grade 2 hepatosteatosis, respectively. The CTL, CTL/S, and CTL−S cutoff values were 48.3, 1.06, and 3.2, respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity results of these cutoff values were 64.7% and 88.3%, 64.7% and 86%, and 64.7% and 86% and the area under the curve values were determined to be 0.81, 0.79, and 0.80 (p< 0.001).

Conclusion: The use of these noninvasive indices can reduce the need for liver biopsy, which is an invasive procedure, as well as lessen the associated complication and cost rates. Future prospective studies are needed on this subject.

Keywords: liver transplantation, donor, liver biopsy, computerized tomography

Corresponding author: Genco Gençdal. E-mail: gencogencdal@yahoo.co.uk

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5856-5384



1. Tapper EBLok AS. Use of Liver Imaging and Biopsy in Clinical Practice. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(8):756-768. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1610570.

2. Boyum JH, Atwell TD, Schmit GD, Poterucha JJ, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS, Kamath PS. Incidence and Risk Factors for Adverse Events Related to Image-Guided Liver Biopsy. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016; 91(3):329-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.11.015. Epub 2016 Feb 2.

3. Braun HJ, Dodge JL, Roll GR, Freise CE, Ascher NL, Roberts JP. Impact of Graft Selection on Donor and Recipient Outcomes After Living Donor Liver Transplantation. Transplantation. 2016; 100(6):1244-50. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000001101.

4. Iida T, Masuda K, Matsuyama T, Harada S, Nakamura T, Koshino K, et al. Significance of Proper Graft Selection in Adult Living-Donor Liver Transplant Recipients with Preoperative Deteriorated Condition. Ann Transplant. 2017; 22:541-549. https://doi.org/10.12659/AOT.904575

5. Angele MK, Rentsch M, Hartl WH, et al. Effect of graft steatosis on liver function and organ survival after liver transplantation. Am J Surg. 2008; 195:214e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.02.023

6. Moosburner S, Sauer IM, Gassner JMGV, Schleicher C, Bösebeck D, Rahmel A, et al. Macrosteatosis is a huge problem in liver transplantation-however, not the only one we face. Am J Transplant. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.15418.

7. Núñez K, Thevenot P, Alfadhli A, Cohen A. Complement Activation in Liver Transplantation: Role of Donor Macrosteatosis and Implications in Delayed Graft Function. Int J Mol Sci. 2018; 19(6)pii: E1750. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19061750.

8. Maruzzelli L, Parr AJ, Miraglia R, et al. Quantification of hepatic steatosis: a comparison of compterized tomography and magnetic resonance indices in candidates for living liver donation. Acad Radiol. 2014; 21:507e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.01.007

9. Limanond P, Raman SS, Lassman C, et al. Macrovesicular hepatic steatosis in living related liver donors: correlation between CT and histologic findings. Radiology. 2004; 230:276e80. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2301021176

10. Lawrence DA, Oliva IB, Israel GM. Detection of hepatic steatosis on contrast-enhanced CT images: diagnostic accuracy of identification of areas of presumed focal fatty sparing. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 199:44-47. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7838

11. Pickhardt PJ, Park SH, Hahn L, Lee SG, Bae KT, Yu ES. Specificity of unenhanced CT for non invasive diagnosis of hepatic steatosis: implications for the investigation of the natural history of incidental steatosis. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22:1075-1082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2349-2

12. Park SH, Kim PN, Kim KW, Lee SW, et al. Macrovesicular hepatic steatosis in living liver donors: use of CT for quantitative and qualitative assessment. Radiology. 2006; 239:105e12. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2391050361

13. Iwasaki M, Takada Y, Hayashi M, et al. Noninvasive evaluation of graft steatosis in living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2004; 27(78):1501e5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.TP.0000140499.23683.0D

14. Lee SS, Park SH, Kim HJ, Kim SY, Kim MY, Kim DY, Suh DJ, Kim KM, Bae MH, Lee JY. Non-invasive assessment of hepatic steatosis: prospective comparison of the accuracy of imaging examinations. J Hepatol. 2010; 52:579-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2010.01.008

Volume 5, Number 59 (2020)