Evaluation of liver functional reserve by combining D-sorbitol clearance rate and CT measured liver volume

Table 1 Indexes of D-sorbitol clearance (mean ± s)

Groups	n	Css (mmol·L-1)	RINS (%)	CLH(QFUNC) (mL·min-1)	E (%)	QTOTAL (mL·min-1)
Control	20	0.189 ± 0.05	8.37 ± 3.32	1248.3 ± 210.5	91.6 ± 6.5	1362.4 ± 126.9
Cirrhotic	92	0.385 ± 0.064a	36.54 ± 10.65	812.7 ± 112.4a	63.5 ± 9.4a	1280.6 ± 131.4

^aP < 0.01 in comparison between the two groups.

Table 2 Relationship between Child-Pugh’s classification and D-sorbitol liver clearance rate and liver volume change rate

Child-Pugh’s classification	n	CLH (mL·min-1)	QINS (%)	Mean cirrhotic liver volume (cm3)
A	36	995.8 ± 174.8	22.2 ± 4.2	1057 ± 249
B	39	783.4 ± 120.6a	38.8 ± 7.3a	851 ± 148a
C	17	548.6 ± 32.8b	57.8 ± 6.6b	663 ± 77b

^bP < 0.01,

^aP < 0.05 in comparison between the two groups.

Table 3 Correlative relationship between hepatic D-sorbitol clearance rate and liver volume change rate and Child-Pugh’s classification

Child-Pugh’s classification	CLH (mL·min-1)			Liver volume change rate
	> 800	600-800	< 600	R ≥ -20%	-40% < R < -20%	R ≤ -40%
A(case)	21	11	4	20	13	3
B(case)	8	24	7	9	26	4
C(case)	0	6	11	2	5	10

Table 4 Relationship between hepatic D-sorbitol clearance rate and liver volume change rate and postoperative compli-cations

Postoperative complications	CLH (mL·min-1)			Liver volume change rate
	> 800	600-800	< 600	R ≥ -20%	-40% < R < -20%	R ≤ -40%
Case number	29	41	22	31	44	17
Complication cases	1	14	16	3	16	12
Rate (%)	3.4	34.2a	72.7b	9.7	36.4a	70.6b

^bP < 0.01,

^aP < 0.05 in comparison between each groups.

Table 5 Correlation between hepatic D-sorbitol clearance rate and liver volume change rate and operation complications

CLH (mL·min-1)	-40% < R < -20%			R ≤ -40%
	Number	Complication case	Complication rate	Number	Complication case	Complication rate
600-800	35	12	34.3(%)	3	1	33.3(%)
< 600	8	5	62.5(%)	14	11	78.6(%)