Affiliation:
1. Orenburg State Medical University
Abstract
The aimof the study is to establish age and gender patterns of morphometric parameters of the gallbladder in children and adolescents based on the findings of intravital imaging.Material and methods.The authors analyzed computed tomograms of the abdominal cavity of 75 children having no visible pathologies of the abdominal organs. The participants were divided into 4 agegroups: early childhood, first childhood, second childhood, adolescence. The diagnostic procedure was performed on 16-slice computed tomographs; a longitudinal size, a distance between the right and left walls, a distance between the anterior and posterior walls and a volume of the gallbladder were detected in the study. The data obtained were processed using variational and statistical methods,the mean value (M), standard error (m) and the significance of differences according to the Student's t-test were determined.Results.The longitudinal size of the gallbladder averaged 4.5±0.1 cm in the entire sample, 4.3±0.1 cm in girls, and 4.6±0.1 cm in boys; there was detected an increase from 3.7±0.2 cm in group 1 to 4.8±0.3 cm in group 4 (p=0.023). The transverse size of the gallbladder was 1.8 ± 0.1 cm, while in girls -1.8 ± 0.1 cm, and in boys - 1.7 ± 0.1 cm. The value of this parameter increased in all examined children from 1.3 ± 0.1 cm in group 1 to 2.1 ± 0.1 cm in group 4 (p = 0.001). In patients of all groups the average value of the distance between the anterior and posterior walls of the gallbladder was 2.8±0.1 cm. In girls this parameter was 2.8±0.1 cm, and in boys -2.9±0.1 cm. This parameter increased in all patients from 2.4±0.1 cm in group 1 to 3.4±0.1 cm in group 4 (p=0.001). The volume of the gallbladder constituted 13.6±0.8 cm3, in girls this parameter was 12.8±1.0 cm3, and in boys - 14.2±1.3 cm3. The volume of the gallbladder increased in all patients from 7.3±1.1 cm3 in group 1 to 19.4±1.9 cm 3 in group 4 (p=0.001).Conclusion.The most significant increase in most studied parameters (p≤0.05) was noted in children of the first childhood group compared with children of the early childhood group, and in adolescents co mpared with children from the second childhood group without differentiation by gender. A significant increase in the morphometric parameters of the gallbladder was determined mainly in boys of the first childhood group compared with children of the early childhood group and in adolescents compared with children of the second childhood group. In girls there was observed a tendency to a smooth increase in parameters from group to group; a significant increase was determined by the parameter “the distance between the anterior and posterior walls” in children of the second age group compared with children of the first age group (p=0.022). Most of the gallbladder morphometric parameters did not significantly differentiate in girls and boys of the same age group.
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science
Reference17 articles.
1. Buzina AM, Fateev IN.Regularities of lifetime morphometric differences extrahepatic bile ducts using the method of magnetic resonance imaging. Fundamental research. 2014;10:255–7] (in Russian).
2. Izranov VA, Kryukova NO. Ultrasound anatomy of the gallbladder and biliary tract. Operativnaya khirurgiya i klinicheskaya anatomiya (Pirogovskii nauchnyi zhurnal). 2020;4(3):44–50] (in Russian). doi: 10.17116/operhirurg2020403144
3. Naidina TK, Dvoryakovskii IV, Sugak AB, Zakharova ES. Normal age dimensions of gallbladder, pancreas and liver for children on the echography data. Ultrasound and Functional Diagnostics. 2001;4:57–63] (in Russian).
4. Poljakov VK, Bolotova NV, Dronova EG, Chapurina TA. Ultrasound sizes of the gall bladder and the physical development of 8-15-year-old children. Clinical Practice In Pediatrics. 2010;5(4):16–20] (in Russian).
5. Cho H-H, Kim WS, Choi YH, Cheon J-E, Lee SM, Kim I-O, et al. Ultrasonography evaluation of infants with Alagille syndrome: In comparison with biliary atresia and neonatal hepatitis. European Journal of Radiology. 2016 Jun;85(6):1045–52. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.03.023