Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 1444–1448 | Cite as

Does coronal oblique length of spleen on CT reflect splenic index?

  • Venkatraman Indiran
  • Naorem Vinod Singh
  • T. Ramachandra Prasad
  • Prabakaran Maduraimuthu
Article

Abstract

Aims and objectives

Splenic dimension of >12 cm on coronal plane on ultrasound is considered to represent splenomegaly. We sought to estimate the accuracy of similar coronal oblique length of spleen on CT in identifying splenomegaly by comparing it with CT splenic index. We also sought to establish the splenic width, craniocaudal dimension (CC), thickness, and coronal oblique length in both normal and splenomegaly groups.

Materials and methods

319 consecutive patients undergoing CT abdomen were included in the study and measurements of width (W), CC, thickness (T), and coronal oblique length (L) made. Splenic index was calculated based on the formula CC × W × T. Diagnostic accuracy of coronal oblique length in identifying splenomegaly on the basis of splenic index was assessed. Patients with splenic trauma were excluded. Patients with perisplenic collection that precluded proper measurement of spleen were excluded.

Results

Of the 319 patients, 41 patients had splenomegaly with splenic index >480. 278 patients showed normal splenic index less than or equal to 480. Sensitivity and specificity of coronal oblique length as ≥12 cm in identifying splenomegaly were 97.8% and 34.1%, respectively. Positive and negative predictive values for the same were 91% and 70%, respectively (p value—0.000). There is overlap of numerical values for thickness and coronal oblique length in the normal and splenomegaly groups for a 95% confidence interval, whereas there is no significant overlap between these groups with respect to the craniocaudal length and width. Hence, craniocaudal length of 9.5 cm and width of 10.6 cm may be used as upper cutoff limit for normal spleen.

Conclusion

Coronal oblique dimension of spleen >12 cm is highly sensitive and shows good positive predictive value in diagnosing splenomegaly but has poor specificity and negative predictive value. Ideally, splenic index calculated using the CC, width, and thickness is the most reliable measurement for diagnosing splenomegaly. But if single measurements are to be used for identifying splenomegaly, craniocaudal length >9.5 cm, width of >10.6 cm, and coronal oblique dimension >12 cm may be used.

Keywords

Spleen Coronal oblique length Splenic index Splenomegaly 

Notes

Author contributions

All authors contributed equally in the collection of data, interpretation of the data, and preparation of manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Bowdler JA (ed) (2001) The complete spleen: structure, function, and clinical disorders, 2nd edn. Totowa: Humana Press, p 328. ISBN 0-89603-555-7Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Laman M, Aipit S, Bona C, et al. (2015) Ultrasonographic assessment of splenic volume at presentation and after anti-malarial therapy in children with malarial anaemia. Malar J 14:219. doi: 10.1186/s12936-015-0741-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blendis LM, Williams R, Kreel L (1969) Radiological determination of spleen size. Gut 10(6):433–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Odorico I, Spaulding KA, Pretorius DH, et al. (1999) Normal splenic volumes estimated using three-dimensional ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 18(3):231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prassopoulos P, Daskalogiannaki M, Raissaki M, Hatjidakis A, Gourtsoyiannis N (1997) Determination of normal splenic volume on computed tomography in relation to age, gender and body habitus. Eur Radiol 7(2):246–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farraher SW, Jara H, Chang KJ, Hou A, Soto JA (2005) Liver and spleen volumetry with quantitative MR imaging and dual-space clustering segmentation. Radiology 237(1):322–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gray G (2000) Henry anatomy of the human body. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger. http://www.bartleby.com/107
  8. 8.
    Sohaib SA, Reznek RH (2001) The reticuloendothelial system: spleen. In: Grainger R, Allison DJ, Adam A, Dixon A (eds) Diagnostic radiology, 4th edn. London: Harcourt Publishers Ltd, pp 1433–1446Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Junior RAJ, Rodrigues CJ, Germano MA, Junior IR, Cerri GG (1995) Sonographic assessment of normal spleen volume. Clin Anat 8:252–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Capaccioli L, Stecco A, Vanzi E, Brizzi E (2000) Ultrasonographic study on the growth and dimensions of healthy children and adult organs. Ital J Anat Embryol 105(1):1–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yetter EM, Acosta KB, Olson MC, Blundell K (2003) Estimating splenic volume: sonographic measurements correlated with helical CT determination. Am J Roentgenol 181(6):1615–1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spielmann AL, DeLong DM, Kliewer MA (2005) Sonographic evaluation of spleen size in tall healthy athletes. Am J Roentgenol 184:45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Loftus WK, Chow LT, Metreweli C (1999) Sonographic measurement of splenic length: correlation with measurement at autopsy. J Clin Ultrasound 27(2):71–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haddad-Zebouni S, Hindy R, Slaba S, et al. (1999) Ultrasonographic evaluation of the kidney, liver and spleen size in children. Arch Pediatr 6(12):1266–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li PS, Ying M, Chan KH, Chan PW, Chu KL (2004) The reproducibility and short-term and long-term repeatability of sonographic measurements of splenic length. Ultrasound Med Biol 30(7):861–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ehimwenma O, Tagbo MT (2011) Determination of normal dimension of spleen by ultrasound in an endemic tropical environment. Niger Med J 52(3):198–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mustapha Z, Tahir A, Tukur M, Bukar M, Lee WK (2010) Sonographic determination of normal spleen size in an adult African population. Eur J Radiol 75(1):e133–e135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lamb PM, Lund A, Kanagasabay RR, et al. (2002) Spleen size: how well do linear ultrasound measurements correlate with three-dimensional CT volume assessments? Br J Radiol 75:573–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elstein D, Hadas-Halpern I, Azuri Y, et al. (1997) Accuracy of ultrasonography in assessing spleen and liver size in patients with Gaucher disease: comparison to computed tomographic measurements. J Ultrasound Med 16:209–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaneko J, Sugawara Y, Matsui Y, Makuuchi M (2008) Spleen size of live donors for liver transplantation. Surg Radiol Anat 30(6):515–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bezerra AS, D’Ippolito G, Faintuch S, Szejnfeld J, Ahmed M (2005) Determination of splenomegaly by CT: is there a place for a single measurement? AJR Am J Roentgenol 184(5):1510–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Srisajjakul S, Prapaisilp P, Laorratkul N (2012) Normal splenic volume assessment on CT in 426 adults. Siriraj Med J 64(2):43–46Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Linguraru MG, Sandberg JK, Jones EC, Summers RM (2013) Assessing splenomegaly: automated volumetric analysis of the spleen. Acad Radiol 20(6):675–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schlesinger AE, Hildebolt CF, Siegel MJ, Pilgrim TK (1994) Splenic volume in children: simplified estimation at CT. Radiology 193(2):578–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harris A, Kamishima T, Hao HY, et al. (2010) Splenic volume measurements on computed tomography utilizing automatically contouring software and its relationship with age, gender, and anthropometric parameters. Eur J Radiol 75(1):97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Asghar A, Naaz S, Agarwal D, Sharma PK (2011) Morphometric study of spleen in North Indian adult population: CT scan image based study. J Clin Diagn Res 5:974–977Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Geraghty EM, Boone JM, McGahan JP, Jain K (2004) Normal organ volume assessment from abdominal CT. Abdom Imaging 29(4):482–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Joiner BJ, Simpson AL, Leal JN, D’Angelica MI, Do RKG (2015) Assessing splenic enlargement on CT by unidimensional measurement changes in patients with colorectal liver metastases. Abdom Imaging 40(7):2338–2344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rezai P, Tochetto SM, Galizia MS, Yaghmai V (2011) Splenic volume model constructed from standardized one-dimensional MDCT measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(2):367–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiodiagnosisSree Balaji Medical College and HospitalChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations