Liver Span Measurement with Probe and Ruler during Ultrasound in Compare with CT Scan

Document Type : Original Article(s)

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Student of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: Ultrasound is a noninvasive and accurate method for measurement of liver size and the evaluation of hepatic size is a daily question in abdominal ultrasound, especially to determine the presence of hepatomegaly. This study investigated a new method of ultrasound for liver span measurement with probe in contrast with previous methods using a ruler for calculating the distance between upper and lower liver margins.Methods: Fifty nine patients with liver CT scan were evaluated with two ultrasound methods of probe and ruler liver span measurement and the findings were compared.Finding: Ultrasound measurement of liver span with new method with probe had accuracy of 64.4% in cut of point of 10 mm in contrast with CT scan.Conclusion: Probe method can be used as an accurate method instead of previous method of measurement with ruler.

Keywords

References

  1. Götzberger M, Weber C, Kaiser HC, Suttmann I, Calderon-Geisselreiter M, Müller-Lisse U, et al. Alternative sonographic determination of liver size by intercostal scans. Praxis (Bern 1994) 2006; 95(6): 183-6. [In German].
  2. Joshi R, Singh A, Jajoo N, Pai M, Kalantri SP. Accuracy and reliability of palpation and percussion for detecting hepatomegaly: a rural hospital-based study. Indian J Gastroenterol 2004; 23(5): 171-4.
  3. Tucker WN, Saab S, Rickman LS, Mathews WC. The scratch test is unreliable for detecting the liver edge. J Clin Gastroenterol 1997; 25(2): 410-4.
  4. Naylor CD. The rational clinical examination. Physical examination of the liver. JAMA 1994; 271(23): 1859-65.
  5. Sullivan S, Krasner N, Williams R. The clinical estimation of liver size: a comparison of techniques and an analysis of the source of error. Br Med J 1976; 2(6043): 1042–3.
  6. Halpern S, Coel M, Ashburn W, Alazraki N, Littenberg R, Hurwitz S, et al. Correlation of liver and spleen size. Determinations by nuclear medicine studies and physical examination. Arch Intern Med 1974; 134(1): 123-4.
  7. Zoli M, Magalotti D, Grimaldi M, Gueli C, Marchesini G, Pisi E. Physical examination of the liver: is it still worth it? Am J Gastroenterol 1995; 90(9): 1428-32.
  8. Koischwitz D. Sonographic determination of liver volume. Problems, methods and practical significance of liver volume measurements. Rofo 1979; 131(3): 243-8. [In German].
  9. Fuller GN, Hargreaves MR, King DM. Scratch test in clinical examination of liver. Lancet 1988; 1(8578): 181.
  10. Singh K, Bhasin DK, Reddy DN, Koshy A. Liver span in normal Indians. Indian J Gastroenterol 1985; 4(2): 73-5.
  11. Chen CM, Wang JJ. Clinical and sonographic assessment of liver size in normal Chinese neonates. Acta Paediatr 1993; 82(4): 345-7.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 28, Issue 113 - Serial Number 113
September and October 2011
Pages 739-744

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 02 March 2011
  • Revise Date: 29 May 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics