Discrepancies in Splenic Size Measurement: A Comparative Analysis of Ultrasound and Computed Tomography
-
Published:2024-04-10
Issue:8
Volume:14
Page:789
-
ISSN:2075-4418
-
Container-title:Diagnostics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Diagnostics
Author:
Lee Hun Woo1, Park Hee Sun12ORCID, Park Sungeun1, Yu Mi Hye12, Kim Young Jun12, Jung Sung Il12
Affiliation:
1. Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical Center, 120-1, Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05030, Republic of Korea 2. Department of Radiology, Konkuk University School of Medicine, 120-1, Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05030, Republic of Korea
Abstract
The accurate measurement of splenic size is essential for the diagnosis and management of various gastrointestinal and hematological conditions. While ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) are widely used imaging modalities for assessing splenic size, discrepancies between their measurements have been observed in clinical practice. This study aimed to analyze the measurement differences between US and CT and identify factors influencing these differences. A retrospective analysis of 598 asymptomatic patients who underwent both abdominal US and CT was conducted. Measurements of splenic size obtained from US, axial CT, and coronal CT scans were compared, and various factors such as patient demographics, operator experience, and imaging parameters were evaluated to elucidate their impact on the measurement discrepancies. The results revealed that US consistently underestimated splenic size compared to CT. The magnitude of the discrepancy was influenced by factors such as patient age, body mass index (BMI), depth of the spleen from skin on US and that on CT, visibility of the splenic hilum on US, sonic window quality, and operator experience. This study underscores the importance of considering these factors when interpreting splenic measurements obtained from different imaging modalities in clinical practice.
Reference35 articles.
1. Spleen size: How well do linear ultrasound measurements correlate with three-dimensional CT volume assessments?;Lamb;Br. J. Radiol.,2002 2. Ultrasonographic assessment of splenic volume and its correlation with body parameters in a Jordanian population;Badran;Saudi Med. J.,2015 3. Sonographic measurements of the normal liver, spleen, pancreas, and portal vein;Niederau;Radiology,1983 4. Castagnoli, F., Doran, S., Lunn, J., Minchom, A., O’Brien, M., Popat, S., Messiou, C., and Koh, D.M. (2022). Splenic volume as a predictor of treatment response in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving immunotherapy. PLoS ONE, 17. 5. Aslan, V., Karabork Kilic, A.C., Ozet, A., Uner, A., Gunel, N., Yazici, O., Savas, G., Bayrak, A., Eraslan, E., and Oksuzoglu, B. (2023). The role of spleen volume change in predicting immunotherapy response in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. BMC Cancer, 23.
|
|