The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Liver Anatomy: Portal (and Suprahepatic) or Biliary Segmentation
Abstract
Background/Aims: In liver anatomy and surgery, is portal and hepatic vein segmentation (French segmentation) to be preferred over arteriobiliary segmentation (Healey and Schroy, North American segmentation)? Methods: Several embryological arguments and an analysis of anatomical data from a personal collection of 110 vasculobiliary casts were made. Results: Embryological arguments: Portal vein branching appears first, arteriobiliary branching secondly follows the portal vein distribution. Segment II (the left lateral sector) is the development of the right lateral embryological lobe. The umbilical vein enters the left portion of the middle embryological lobe, forming segment IV on the right and segment III on the left: this is the left paramedian sector. So the left portal fissure (between left and middle lobes) transversally crosses the classical left lobe, which is not a portal unit. Segment VI is a late secondary prominence of segment VII, reaching the anterior margin of the liver only in man. Anatomical arguments: hepatic vein segmentation must be added to portal segmentation; the academic left lobe is the left hepatic vein sector, and the left hepatic fissure separates the classical right and left lobes. Portal vein segmentation must be preferred: portal vein duplication of branches of first order occurs only in 23.5% of the cases, while arteriobiliary duplication of first-order branches is noted in 50% of the livers, portal segmentation being much simpler. Conclusions: Portal and hepatic vein segmentation seems to be much more accurate.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ng, K. K. C., Chok, K. S. H., Chan, A. C. Y., Cheung, T. T., Wong, T. C. L., Fung, J. Y. Y., Yuen, J., Poon, R. T. P., Fan, S. T., & Lo, C. M. (2017) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.10677 · Cited by 331
Nakamura, T., Tanaka, K., Kiuchi, T., Kasahara, M., Oike, F., Ueda, M., Kaihara, S., Egawa, H., Ozden, I., Kobayashi, N., et al. (2002) · Transplantation · doi:10.1097/00007890-200206270-00008 · Cited by 313
Liver regeneration and inflammation: from fundamental science to clinical applications
Campana, L., Esser, H., Huch, M., & Forbes, S. (2021) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/s41580-021-00373-7 · Cited by 307
Anatomy of rodent and human livers: What are the differences?
Kruepunga, N., Hakvoort, T. B. M., Hikspoors, J. P. J. M., Köhler, S. E., & Lamers, W. H. (2019) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Basis of Disease · doi:10.1016/j.bbadis.2018.05.019 · Cited by 79
Liver Fat Quantification by Dual-echo MR Imaging Outperforms Traditional Histopathological Analysis
Fischer, M. A., Raptis, D. A., Montani, M., Graf, R., Clavien, P.-A., Nanz, D., Alkadhi, H., & Scheffel, H. (2012) · Academic Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.acra.2012.05.009 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Couinaud, C.
- Venue
- Digestive Surgery
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 1999
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 459-467
- ISSN
- 0253-4886 (ISSN-L)
- 1421-9883
- OpenAlex
- W2062140168
- Cited by
- 400
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Liver Anatomy: Portal (and Suprahepatic) or Biliary Segmentation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000018770
- The paper
- Couinaud, C. (1999). Liver Anatomy: Portal (and Suprahepatic) or Biliary Segmentation. Digestive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1159/000018770
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.