Overview of imaging in liver surgery

Czech version

Authors: T. Husárová ¹; T. Koutný ²; J. Pudil ¹; Š. O. Schütz ¹; M. Rousek ¹; T. Tůma ²; Radek Pohnán ¹
Authors‘ workplace: Chirurgická klinika 2. LF UK a ÚVN – VFN Praha ¹; Radiodiagnostické oddělení, ÚVN – VFN Praha ²
Published in: Rozhl. Chir., 2026, roč. 105, č. 1, s. 13-19.
Category: Review
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/ccrvch2026

Overview

Continuous improvement in imaging techniques plays an integral part of the evolvement in liver surgery. Accurate imaging is necessary for the diagnostics and surgeon’s preoperative preparation, specifically for learning the individual anatomy, which is often variable in the liver, and for understanding the precise extent of pathology. A compelling area in preoperative evaluation is the assessment of the liver parenchyma function, for which the official guidelines have been published, specifying the precise indications, among other things. An upcoming method for assessing liver parenchyma function is magnetic resonance, which has the potential to evaluate both the volume and the function of the future liver remnant. Beyond preoperative imaging, the real-time imaging directly in the operating room enables surgeons to perform the most complex procedures. With the growing establishment of minimally invasive approaches, fluorescent imaging using indocyanine green is increasingly utilized, presenting the main substitution of tactile perception during open resections in combination with ultrasound. The future potentially lies in targeted molecular imaging, which has the potential to eliminate the current shortcomings of imaging methods. We present an overview of current trends in liver imaging and a relevant literature.

Keywords:

liver surgery – imaging in liver surgery – liver function assessment

Sources

Milana F, Famularo S, Diana M et al. How much is enough? A surgical perspective on imaging modalities to estimate function and volume of the future liver remnant before hepatic resection. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13(17): 2726. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13172726.
Wilson SR, Burns PN, Kono Y. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of focal liver masses: a success story. Ultrasound Med Biol 2020; 46(5): 1059–1070. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2019.12.021.
Agostini A, Borgheresi A, Floridi C et al. The role of imaging in surgical planning for liver resection: what the radiologist need to know. Acta Biomed 2020; 91(8–S): 18–26. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i8-S.9938.
Vauthey JN, Dixon E, Abdalla EK et al. Pretreatment assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma: expert consensus statement. HPB (Oxford) 2010; 12(5): 289–299. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2010.00181.x.
Zahradníková P, Lindák M, Vitovič P et al. 3D printed synthetic models for training minimally invasive pediatric surgery –⁠ our own experience and literature review. Rozhl Chir 2025; 104(1): 11–19. doi: 10.48095/ccrvch202511.
Bilhim T, Böning G, Guiu B et al. CIRSE standards of practice on portal vein embolization and double vein embolization/liver venous deprivation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2024; 47(8): 1025–1036. doi: 10.1007/s00270-024-03743-8.
Freitas PS, Janicas C, Veiga J et al. Imaging evaluation of the liver in oncology patients: a comparison of techniques. World J Hepatol 2021; 13(12): 1936–1955. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v13.i12.1936.
Elbanna KY, Kielar AZ. Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging for hepatic lesion characterization/diagnosis. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken) 2021; 17(3): 159–164. doi: 10.1002/cld.1089.
Griffin N, Wastle ML, Dunn WK et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003; 15(7): 809–813. doi: 10.1097/01.meg.0000059156.68845.46.
Georgopoulos SK, Schwartz LH, Jarnagin WR et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in malignant pancreaticobiliary obstruction. Arch Surg 1999; 134(9): 1002–1007. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.134.9.1002.
Lake ES, Wadhwani S, Subar D e tal. The influence of FDG PET-CT on the detection of extrahepatic disease in patients being considered for resection of colorectal liver metastasis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2014; 96(3): 211–215. doi: 10.1308/003588414X13814021679195.
Guniganti P, Kierans AS. PET/MRI of the hepatobiliary system: review of techniques and applications. Clin Imaging 2021; 71 : 160–169. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.10.056.
Primavesi F, Maglione M, Cipriani F et al. E-AHPBA-ESSO-ESSR Innsbruck consensus guidelines for preoperative liver function assessment before hepatectomy. Br J Surg 2023; 110(10): 1331–1347. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad233.
Sparrelid E, Jonas E, Tzortzakakis A et al. Dynamic evaluation of liver volume and function in associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2017; 21(6): 967–974. doi: 10.1007/s11605-017-3389-y.
Kambakamba P, Stocker D, Reiner CS et al. Liver kinetic growth rate predicts postoperative liver failure after ALPPS. HPB (Oxford) 2016; 18(10): 800–805. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2016.07.005.
Narita M, Oussoultzoglou E, Fuchshuber P et al. What is a safe future liver remnant size in patients undergoing major hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases and treated by intensive preoperative chemotherapy? Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19(8): 2526–2538. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2274-x.
Bae KE, Kim SY, Lee SS et al. Assessment of hepatic function with Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced hepatic MRI. Dig Dis 2012; 30(6): 617–622. doi: 10.1159/000343092.
Wang Q, Wang A, Sparrelid E et al. Predictive value of gadoxetic acid –⁠ enhanced MRI for posthepatectomy liver failure: a systematic review. Eur Radiol 2022; 32(3): 1792–1803. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08297-8.
Bártulos CR, Senk K, Schumacher M et al. Assessment of liver function with MRI: where do we stand? Font Med (Lausanne) 2022; 9 : 839919. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.839919.
Arntz PJ, Deroose CM, Marcus C et al. Joint EANM/SNMMI/IHPBA procedure guideline for [(99m)Tc]Tc-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy SPECT/CT in the quantitative assessment of the future liver remnant function. HPB (Oxford) 2023; 25(10): 1131–1144. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.06.001.
Caimano M, Bianco G, Coppola A et al. Indocyanine green clearance tests to assess liver transplantation outcomes: a systematic review. Int J Surg 2024; 1101): 431–440. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000779.
Torzilli G, Vigano L, Gatti A et al. Twelve-year experience of “radical but conservative” liver surgery for colorectal metastases: impact on surgical practice and oncologic efficacy. HPB (Oxford) 2017; 19(9): 775–784. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2017.05.006.
Parks KR, Hagopian EJ. Introduction: the importance of ultrasound in a surgical practice. In: Hagopian EJ, Machi J (eds). Abdominal ultrasound for surgeons. Springer 2014.
Pavone M, Seeliger B, Teodorico E et al. Ultrasound-guided robotic surgical procedures: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 2024; 38(5): 2359–2370. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-10772-4.
Aoki T, Murakami M, Yasuda D et al. Intraoperative fluorescent imaging using indocyanine green for liver mapping and cholangiography. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2010; 17(5): 590–594. doi: 10.1007/s00534-009-0197-0.
Wang X, Teh CS, Ishizawa T et al. Consensus guidelines for the use of fluorescence imaging in hepatobiliary surgery. Ann Surg 2021; 274(1): 97–106; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004718.
Kimbrough CW, Hudson S, Khanal A et al. Orthotopic pancreatic tumors detected by optoacoustic tomography using Syndecan-1. J Surg Res 2015; 193(1): 246–254. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2014.06.045.