Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Aug 9;13(1):155–164.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.07.051

Table 2.

Comparison of liver and liver parenchymal volumes and predicted liver volumes using a standardized equation versus liver volumes for healthy controls.

Liver Volume (mL) Liver Parenchymal Volume (mL)

Normal living liver transplant donors HALT (predicted) HALT (observed) HALT (all patients) HALT (patients with cysts) HALT (patients without cysts)
Men
mean±std (n) 1772±393 (11) 1875 ±238 (274) 2022±749 (267) 1900±344 (267) 1892 ±331 (185) 1918 ±372 (82)
P value vs. normal donors ------ ------ <.0001* <.0001* <.0001* <.0001*
P value vs. predicted LV ------ ------ .0004** .6046** .7931** .5969**
Women
mean±std (n) 1495±357 (21) 1511±235 (271) 1905±860 (267) 1594±337 (267) 1555 ±289 (210) 1735 ±448 (57)
P value vs. normal donors ------ ------ <.0001* <.0001* <.0001* <.0001*
P value vs. predicted LV ------ ------ <.0001** <.0001** .0001** <.0663**

To determine predicted LV (reported as “HALT predicted”) we used the Vauthey formula, a validated equation for the estimation of standard liver volume in the Caucasian population (LV in mL = −794.41+1,267.28 × BSA in m2).22 Note values in this table are unadjusted for height to permit between group comparisons.

*

One-sample t test compared to healthy controls.

**

Paired t test compared to predicted LV.

Normal liver transplant donor MRI-derived LVs were obtained at the University of Pittsburgh from patients considering liver donation. Similar results were obtained using LVs from a CT-based study from another published healthy population (males 1710±288 mL (41) and females 1411±263 mL (36)) 20