Ultrasound examination of the liver post mortem: are there any changes in size after autopsy?
https://doi.org/10.18699/SSMJ20240509
Abstract
The liver size is important to take into account when it is necessary to assess the course and severity of various diseases, including infectious, malignant and systemic diseases. The liver linear dimensions of the same patient depend on the method of examination (palpation, percussion, sonography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging). The objective of this investigation was to compare the linear diameters of the liver according to ultrasound data of cadavers before autopsy and liver linear diameters after extraction of it from the abdominal cavity. Material and methods. All data were obtained in the pathology department of the Regional Clinical Hospital of the Kaliningrad Region. We examined 25 cadavers (12 females and 13 males). Before the autopsy we performed the ultrasound examination with measuring of the linear diameters of the functional left and right lobes with a convex transducer of a portable S6 ultrasound system (SonoScape, China). After the autopsy we did 3 sagitally oriented incisions for maximum linear measurements similar to previous ultrasound ones. Results and discussion. After extraction of the liver from the abdominal cavity the anteroposterior diameters of both lobes decreased on average by half after autopsy (p < 0.001), the craniocaudal diameters of the left and right lobes, on the contrary, increased on average 2 times and 1.25–1.35 times respectively (p < 0.001). The oblique craniocaudal maximum diameter of the right lobe increased (“stretches”) by an average of 1.11–1.15 times (p = 0.002). Conclusions. After extraction of the liver from the abdominal cavity all the linear diameters changed. The oblique craniocaudal maximum diameter of the right lobe is the most “stable”, due to which it possible to imagine the intravital diameter of the liver.
About the Authors
I. A. Opryshko
Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Irina A. Opryshko
236041, Kaliningrad, Aleksandra Nevskogo st., 14
V. A. Izranov
Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vladimir A. Izranov, doctor of medical sciences, professor
236041, Kaliningrad, Aleksandra Nevskogo st., 14
V. S. Gordova
Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Valentina S. Gordova, candidate of medical sciences
236041, Kaliningrad, Aleksandra Nevskogo st., 14
M. S. Shushval
Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University ; Regional Clinical Hospital of the Kaliningrad Region
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Mikhail S. Shushval, candidate of medical sciences
236041, Kaliningrad, Aleksandra Nevskogo st., 14
236016, Kaliningrad, Klinicheskaya st., 74
S. A. Stepanyan
Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University ; BostonGene Technologies LLC
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Stepan A. Stepanyan
236041, Kaliningrad, Aleksandra Nevskogo st., 14
Armenia, 0012, Yerevan, Hrachya Kochara st., 2a
Kh. Abdujabborov
Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University ; Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Khurshed Abdujabborov
236041, Kaliningrad, Aleksandra Nevskogo st., 14
117198, Russia, Moscow, Miklukho-Maklaya st., 6
References
1. Esmeal M.A., Khalid N.H. Correlation between size of left lobe of the liver and body characteristic among sudanese patients 2018–2019. International Journal of Research – GRANTHAALAYAH. 2019;7(11):19–27. doi: 10.29121/granthaalayah.v7.i11.2020.330
2. Seppelt D., Ittermann T., Kromrey M.L., Kolb C., vWahsen C., Heiss P., Völzke H., Hoffmann R.T., Kühn J.P. Simple diameter measurement as predictor of liver volume and liver parenchymal disease. Sci. Rep. 2022;12(1):1257. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-04825-8
3. Surasi D.S.S., Jazbeh S., Nicek Z.S., Zanabria R.S., Wells R.T., Patel A., Alhyari L., Wagner J.W. Utility of longitudinal measurement of the liver with ultrasound in comparison to computed tomography liver volume in assessing hepatomegaly. Ultrasound Q. 2019;37(2):198–203. doi: 10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000472
4. Wolf D.C. Evaluation of the size, shape, and consistency of the liver. In: Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations. 3rd ed. Boston: Butterworths, 1990.
5. Naftalis J., Leevy C.M. Clinical estimation of liver size. Am. J. Dig. Dis. 1963;8:236–243. doi: 10.1007/BF02232322
6. Loloi J., Patel A., McDevitt P., Bruno M.A., Riley T. How strongly do physical examination estimates and ultrasonographic measurements of liver size correlate? A prospective study. Am. J. Med. 2019;132(1):103–108. doi: 10.1016/j.am-jmed.2018.09.012
7. Peternel W.W., Schaefer J.W., Schiff L. Clinical evaluation of liver size and hepatic scintiscan. Am. J. Dig. Dis. 1966;11(5):346–350. doi: 10.1007/BF02233628
8. Castell D.O., O’Brien K.D., Muench H., Chalmers T.C. Eastimation of liver size by percussion in normal individuals. Ann. Intern. Med. 1969;70(6):1183– 1189. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-70-6-1183
9. Blendis L.M., McNeilly W.J., Sheppard L., Williams R., Laws J.W. Observer variation in the clinical and radiological assessment of hepatosplenomegaly. Br. Med. J. 1970;1(5698):727–730. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.5698.727
10. 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):1042–1043. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.6043.1042
11. Silva R.M., Pereira R.B., Siqueira M.V. Correlation between clinical evaluation of liver size versus ultrasonography evaluation according to body mass index (BMI) and biotypes. Rev. Med. Chil. 2010;138(12):1495–1501.
12. Mouratev G., Howe D., Hoppmann R., Poston M.B., Reid R., Varnadoe J., Smith S., McCallum B., Rao V., DeMarco P. Teaching medical students ultrasound to measure liver size: comparison with experienced clinicians using physical examination alone. Teach. Learn. Med. 2013;25(1):84–88. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2012.741535
13. Singh T., Singla B. Clinical and sonographic estimation of liver span in normal healthy adults. Int. J. Med. Res. Health Sci. 2017;6(1):94–97.
14. Gupta K., Dhawan A., Abel C., Talley N., Attia J. A re-evaluation of the scratch test for locating the liver edge. BMC Gastroenterol. 2013;13:35. doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-13-35
15. Borchert D., Schuler A., Muche R., Haenle M.M., Akinli A.S., Arnold F., Kratzer W., Pauls S. Vergleich von Panoramasonografie, konventioneller BBild-Sonografie und Computertomografie zur Bestimmung der Lebergröße. Ultraschall Med. 2010;31(1):31– 36. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1109309
16. Stepanyan I., Izranov V., Gordova V., Rohwein R., Stepanyan S. Magnetic resonance and ultrasound imaging: do the linear liver measurements differ in men and women? Archiv Euromedica. 2020;10(3):48– 50. doi: 10.35630/2199-885X/2020/10/3.11
17. Stepanyan I.A., Izranov V.A., Gordova V.S., Beletskaya M.A., Stepanyan S.A. Intraand inter-research reproducibility of linear liver measurementsby ultrasound examination. Luchevaya diagnostika i terapiya = Diagnostic Radiology and Radiotherapy. 2020;11(3):73–81. [In Russian]. doi: 10.22328/2079-5343-2020-11-3-73-81
18. Gosink B.B., Leymaster C.E. Ultrasonic determination of hepatomegaly. J. Clin. Ultrasound. 1981;9(1):37–44. doi: 10.1002/jcu.1870090110
19. Levenets S.V., Andreeva I.V., Vinogradov A.A. Possibilities of study of ultrasound anatomy of abdominal organs and portal veins in cadavers. Ukrayinsʹkiy morfolohichniy alʹmanakh = Ukrainian Morphological Almanac. 2008; 6(3):43–45. [In Russian].
20. Riestra-Candelaria B.L., Rodríguez-Mojica W., Vázquez-Quiñones L.E., Jorge J.C. Ultrasound accuracy of liver length measurement with cadaveric specimens. J. Diagn. Med. Sonogr. 2016;32(1):12–19. doi: 10.1177/8756479315621287
21. Bismuth H. Surgical specialization. Br. J. Surg. 2013;100(12):1545–1546. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9171_1 22. Castaing D., Veilhan, L.-A. Anatomie du foie et des voies biliaires. EMC. 2006;1(3):1–12. doi: 10.1016/s0246-0424(06)43346-x
22. Castaing D., Veilhan, L.-A. Anatomy of the liver and bile ducts. EMC. 2006;1(3):1–12. [In French]. doi: 10.1016/s0246-0424(06)43346-x
23. Mahadevan V. Anatomy of the liver. Surgery (Oxford). 2014;38:427–431. doi: 10.1016/j.mp-sur.2014.10.004
24. Skandalakis J.E., Skandalakis L.J., Skandalakis P.N., Mirilas P. Hepatic surgical anatomy. Surg. North. Am. 2004;84(2):413–435. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2003.12.002
25. Couinaud C. Anatomie du foie. Ann. Ital. Chir. 1992;63(6):693–697. Couinaud C. The anatomy of the liver. Ann. Ital. Chir. 1992;63(6):693–697. [In French].
26. Abdel-Misih S.R., Bloomston M. Liver anatomy. Surg. Clin. North. Am. 2010;90(4):643–653. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2010.04.017
27. Dietrich C.F., Serra C., Jedrzejczyk M. Ultrasound of the liver. EFSUMB – European Course Book. 2010:1–90
28. Juza R.M., Pauli E.M. Clinical and surgical anatomy of the liver: a review for clinicians. Clin. Anat. 2014;27(5):764–769. doi: 10.1002/ca.22350
29. Majno P., Mentha G., Toso C., Morel P., Peitgen H.O., Fasel J.H. Anatomy of the liver: an outline with three levels of complexity – a further step towards tailored territorial liver resections. J. Hepatol. 2014;60(3):654–662. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2013.10.026
30. Healey J.E. Jr., Schroy P.C. Anatomy of the biliary ducts within the human liver: analysis of the prevailing pattern of branchings and the major variations of the biliary ducts. AMA Arch. Surg. 1953; 66:599–616. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1953.01260030616008
Review
For citations:
Opryshko I.A., Izranov V.A., Gordova V.S., Shushval M.S., Stepanyan S.A., Abdujabborov Kh. Ultrasound examination of the liver post mortem: are there any changes in size after autopsy? Сибирский научный медицинский журнал. 2024;44(5):80-87. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18699/SSMJ20240509
Views:
802
Email this article 