|
Indian Pediatr 2010;47:
475-476 |
 |
Measuring Liver and Spleen by Ultrasonography |
Ujjal Poddar* and Barath Jagadisan
*Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Sanjay Gandhi
Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences,
Lucknow 226 014, India.
Email: [email protected]
|
Understanding and defining the normal is
usually the most difficult part of labeling something as abnormal. The
morphological characterization of liver and spleen is one of the many
parameters that go into detecting liver disorders and systemic infectious,
inflammatory and malignant pathologies. Invariably the complete
characterization of the disease process may need morphological assessment
of other anatomical structures and laboratory reports. How-ever, there are
many conditions where organomegaly may be the only feature on
ultrasonography like splenomegaly in malaria, kala-azar and hepatomegaly
in many metabolic conditions like glycogen storage disease, besides
infections. On the contrary, clinically palpable liver and spleen may not
be pathological. Pushed down liver and spleen due to lung or
subdiaphragmatic pathology, visceroptosis and palpable spleen in 10% to
15% of normal children are a few examples of palpable liver and spleen
without any clinical significance(1).
Ultrasonography is used routinely to evaluate visceral
organs in children. In many countries with endemic schistosomiasis,
abdominal ultrasono-graphy is used for organometric investigations of the
spleen and liver and shown to be reliable and reproducible(2). In India
too, ultrasonography can be used in epidemiological studies of many
endemic diseases like kala-azar and chronic malaria, provided we have
normative data. So far we did not have any normative data on liver and
spleen size in children from our country. In this regard, the study by
Dhingra et al.(3) is a positive step.
Ultrasonography is non-invasive and reproducible but
its accuracy in measuring organ size depends on some technical factors.
The type of probe used is important in measuring liver length. Convex
probe is shown to be better than the linear one as the latter, because of
the interposition of lung between the dome of the liver and the anterior
abdominal wall; prevents some of the superior portion of liver from being
observed(4). The plane of measurement is another factor; for the liver,
mid-clavicular line is better than sagittal line because the left lobe of
liver in particular differs in extension and size from person to person
and with age but right lobe measurements are more consistent(4). For the
measurement of spleen, position of the subject (slight right lateral
decubitus or supine) is important. Ideally volumetric assessment should be
considered in three-dimensional organs like liver and spleen but it is
cumbersome, time-consuming and is not accurate for an organ like liver as
its shape does not comply with usual geometric shapes which is essential
for volumetric assessment(5). Thus an assessment in a single longitudinal
axis is sufficient and is easier to use. The same holds good for the
measurement of spleen and the measurement should be the optically maximal
distance at the hilum on the longitudinal coronal view between the most
superomedial and the most inferolateral points. The normative data for
these measurements have been defined for children in various countries and
there seems to be a good agreement between countries(6).
Unlike in adults, visceral organs grow with age and
hence we can’t have a fixed standard measurement of liver and spleen.
Measurement needs to be correlated with age, length/height, body weight
and body surface area. As expected, in children there is no difference in
organ size between males and females. Though liver and spleen size
measurements correlate best with height, some studies have shown a good
correlation with weight and body surface area too(4,7).
The study by Dhingra, et al.(3) is the first of
its kind from India and will help in setting up normative data for our
children. However, there are inherent problems of doing this kind of study
in a government hospital. For setting up normative data, a study should be
done on ‘true’ healthy children and those should come from the community
and should represent all strata of the society. In India, government
hospitals mainly cater to the poorer segment of the society and nutrition
related variables like malnutrition, anemia etc. are known to influence
the size of live and spleen. Secondly, to represent the whole community we
need to have adequate number of children in each age group. The number of
children in < 3 months, <6 months and <12 months are abysmally low. Hence,
we need to have a bigger study conducted in the community to set up our
own normative data on liver and spleen size in children; till such time
this pilot study will provide a ready reference.
Funding: None.
Competing interests: None stated.
References
1. Camitta BM. Splenomegaly. In: Kliegman RM,
Behrman RE, Jenson HB, Staton BF. Eds. Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics. 18th
ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders; 2007. p. 2091.
2. Yazdanpanah Y, Thomas AK, Kardorff R, Talla I, Sow
S, Niang M, et al. Organometric investigations of the spleen and
liver by ultrasound in Schistosoma mansoni endemic and nonendemic
villages in Senegal. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1997; 57: 245-249.
3. Dhingra B, Sharma S, Mishra D, Kumari R, Pandey RM,
Aggarwal S. Normal values of liver and spleen size by ultrasonography in
Indian children. Indian Pediatr 2010; 47: 487-492.
4. Konus OL, Ozdemir A, Akkaya A, Erbas G, Celik H,
Isik S. Normal liver, spleen and kidney dimension in neonates, infants and
children: evaluation with sonography. Am J Radiol 1998; 171: 1693-1698.
5. Dittrich M, Milde S, Dinkel E, Baumann W, Weitzel D.
Sonographic biometry of liver and spleen size in childhood. Pediatr Radiol
1983; 13: 206-211.
6. Loftus WK, Metreweli C. Ultrasound assessment of
mild splenomegaly: spleen/kidney ratio. Pediatr Radiol 1998; 28: 98-100.
7. Safak AA, Simsek E, Bahcebasi T. Sonographic
assessment of the normal limits and percentile curves of liver, spleen and
kidney dimensions in healthy school-aged children. J Ultrasound Med 2005;
24: 1359-1364.
|
|
 |
|