title: The segments of the hepatic veins-is there a spatial correlation to the Couinaud liver segments?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To investigate and describe the volume, position and shape of venous segments within the human liver and define their spatial correlation to the Couinaud segments (CS) and to the portal vein segments (PVS).
  
  
  METHODS
  This study was based on 64 routinely acquired CT scans of patients undergoing hepatic surgery. The final analysis included 19 patients. All 19 CT data sets were transformed into 3D liver models. Three venous segments were postulated reflecting the left, middle, and right hepatic vein. Each venous segment was furthermore divided in two venous subsegments. Volume, position and shape of these venous segments/subsegments were calculated and, finally, compared with the volume, position and shape of the Couinaud segments and the portal vein segments.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The right hepatic vein covers with 539.8 +/- 119.5 ml (47.1%) the largest part of total liver volume followed by the middle hepatic vein 372.7 +/- 151.1 ml (32.5%) and the left hepatic vein 248 +/- 75.9 ml (20.4%). The Couinaud liver segments and portal vein segments 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 have consistent positional assignments within the three venous segments. Only the CS 4a, 4b, and 6 showed significantly different positions compared to the PVS 4a, 4b, and 6 (P < 0.03). The venous subsegments have a broad volumetric distribution reaching from 79 to 337 ml. There is no positional correlation of venous subsegments compared to Couinaud segments or portal vein segments at all (kappa < 0.75). In contrast, the venous segments/subsegments which can be assigned to either liver halve and either liver lobe have an identical volume, shape and position compared to the corresponding Couinaud liver segments (kappa > 0.75).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The venous segments distinguish liver areas divided by the left and middle hepatic vein in exactly the same pattern as Couinaud segments and portal vein segments do. However, the comparison of shape and position of venous subsegments showed no correlation with both liver segmental approaches.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. lfischer@ucla.edu
authors.forename: Lars
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Fischer
authors.forename: Matthias
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Thorn
authors.forename: Jan O
authors.initials: JO
authors.lastname: Neumann
authors.forename: Max
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Schöbinger
authors.forename: Tobias
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Heimann
authors.forename: Lars
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Grenacher
authors.forename: Hans P
authors.initials: HP
authors.lastname: Meinzer
authors.forename: Helmut
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Friess
authors.forename: Markus W
authors.initials: MW
authors.lastname: Büchler
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D006503:Hepatic Veins / Q000033:anatomy & histology* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D006801:Humans; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional; D008099:Liver / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000098:blood supply* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D008107:Liver Diseases / Q000601:surgery; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011169:Portal Vein / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D011856:Radiographic Image Enhancement; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed