Sonographic Evaluation of Splenic Dimensions in Healthy Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Women

Authors

  • Fatima Syed Muhammad The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan.
  • Syed Muhammad Yousaf Farooq The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan.
  • Naveed Asad The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan.
  • Shameem Akram The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan.
  • Aqsa Hafeez The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan.
  • Shanza Zafar The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan.
  • Zoha Sabeeh University Institute of Radiological Sciences and Medical Imaging Technology, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Ume Hani Rashid The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan.
  • Lina Khaled Jallad Fatima College of Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36570/jduhs.2023.2.1822

Keywords:

Gestational Age, Maternal, Obstetrics, Pregnancy, Spleen, Ultrasound

Abstract

Objective: To compare the ultrasonographic findings of splenic dimension in healthy pregnant and non-pregnant women.
Methods: This analytical cross-sectional study was conducted at University Ultrasound Clinic, Lahore from August 2022 to February 2023. A total of 200 females (100 non-pregnant and 100 pregnant) were examined. Mindray and Toshiba Ultrasound Machines were used to perform the ultrasonography. The measurements of splenic length, width, and thickness were recorded. The length of the spleen was measured in a longitudinal view. The width of the spleen was measured in a transverse view. The anteroposterior diameter (thickness) of the spleen was also measured.
Results: The overall mean age was 29.0 ± 7.8 years. The mean difference of splenic width, thickness, and volume were significantly higher in pregnant women as compared to non-pregnant women i.e., 5.58 ± 1.44 cm vs. 5.15 ± 1.42 cm (p-value 0.033), 6.37 ± 2.56 cm vs. 4.46 ± 1.10 cm (p-value <0.001), and 178.2 ± 97.90 cm³ vs. 118.8 ± 47.57 cm³ (p-value <0.001) respectively. A significant difference of splenic width (p-value <0.001) and thickness (p-value <0.001) were observed with respect to gestational age of the individuals. Moreover, mean difference of splenic width was significantly increased in age group 15-30 years as compared to 31-51 years i.e., 5.68 ± 2.25 cm vs. 4.94 ± 2.00 cm (p-value 0.022) respectively.
Conclusion: In pregnancy, the splenic thickness and splenic volume is seen to be increased when compared to non-pregnant women.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Cesta MF. Normal structure, function, and histology of the spleen. Toxicol Pathol 2006; 34:455-65.

doi:10.1080/01926230600867743

Zainab SD, John A, Ali A, Abbas SN, Kiran W. Evaluation of Normal Spleen Volume using Ultrasonography: Evaluation of Normal Spleen Volume using Ultrasonography. Pak J Health Sci 2022; 30:21-4. doi:org/10.54393/pjhs.v3i01.52

Suttie AW. Histopathology of the spleen. Toxicol Pathol 2006; 34:466-503. doi:10.1080/01926230600867750

Izranov V, Palvanova U, Gordova V, Perepelitsa S, Morozov S. Ultrasound criteria of splenomegaly. Radiologist 2019; 1:3-6.

Chapman J, Bansal P, Goyal A, Azevedo AM. Splenom-egaly 2021. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.

Akinlaja O. Hematological changes in pregnancy-The prepa-ration for intrapartum blood loss. Obstet Gynecol Int J 2016; 4:00109. doi:10.15406/ogij.2016.04.00109

Udoh BE, Ukpong EV, Paulinus SO, Okokon C, Erim AE. Sonographic evaluation of maternal splenic dimensions in normal pregnancy. Niger J Med 2021; 30:17-20. doi:10.4103/NJM.NJM_92_20

Maymon R, Strauss S, Vaknin Z, Weinraub Z, Herman A, Gayer G. Normal sonographic values of maternal spleen size throughout pregnancy. Ultrasound Med Biol 2006; 32:1827-31. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.06.017

O'Malley C, Cunningham AJ. Physiologic changes during laparoscopy. Anesthesiol Clin North Am 2001; 19:1-19. doi:10.1016/s0889-8537(05)70208-x

Badran DH, Kalbouneh HM, Al-Hadidi MT, Shatarat AT, Taraw-neh ES, Hadidy AM, et al. Ultrasonographic assessment of splenic volume and its correlation with body parameters in a Jordanian population. Saudi Med J 2015; 36:967-72. doi:10.15537/smj.2015.8.11809

Andrews MW. Ultrasound of the spleen. World J Surg 2000; 24:183-7. doi:10.1007/s002689910031

Nayak BS, Somayaji S, Soumya KJIJoM. A Study on the Variati-ons of Size, Shape and External Features of the Spleen in South Indian Population. Intl J Morphol 2011; 29:675-7.

Ehimwenma O, Tagbo MT. Determination of normal dimen- sion of the spleen by ultrasound in an endemic tropical environment. Niger Med J 2011; 52:198-203.

doi:10.4103/0300-1652.86141

Fernandez Llario P, Parra A, Cerrato R, Hermoso de Mendoza J. Spleen size variations and reproduction in a Mediterranean population of wild boar (Sus scrofa). Eur J Wildl Res 2004; 50:13-7.

Gayer G, Ben Ely A, Maymon R, Hertz M. Enlargement of the spleen as an incidental finding on CT in post-partum females with fever. Br J Radiol 2012; 85:753-7.

doi:10.1259/bjr/92126864

Okoye IJ, Agwu KK, Ochie K. Sonographic splenic sizes in nor-mal adult Nigerian population. West Afr J Radiol 2005; 12:37-47.

Imo AO, Eze JC, Udoh BE. Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Splenic Volumes in Normal Subjects in South-East, Nigeria. West Afr J Radiol 2011; 18:42-7.

doi:10.4314/wajr.v18i1.71040

Ugboma E, Ugboma H. Sonographic evaluation of the splenic length in normal pregnancy in a tertiary hospital in southern Nigeria: a pilot study. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2013; 3:330-3.

doi:10.4103/2141-9248.117928

Demissie S, Mergu P, Hailu T, Abebe G, Warsa M, Fikadu T. Morphometric assessment of spleen dimensions and its determinants among individuals living in Arba Minch town, southern Ethiopia. BMC Med Imaging 2021; 21:186. doi:10.1186/s12880-021-00719-9

Tekle Y, Gudadhe DR, Abreha M, Muche A, Tegegne Z, Hiware SD. Morphometric assessment of the normal dimensions of the adult spleen in North-west Ethiopia Region—a radiological study. Ann Int Med Dent Res 2018; 4:34.

doi:10.21276/aimdr.2018.4.4.AT7

Caglar V, Alkoc OA, Uygur R, Serdaroglu O, Ozen OA. Deter-mination of normal splenic volume in relation to age, gender and body habitus: a stereological study on computed tomography. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 2014; 73:331-8. doi:10.5603/FM.2014.0038

Kaneko J, Sugawara Y, Matsui Y, Ohkubo T, Makuuchi M. Normal splenic volume in adults by computed tomography. Hepatogastroenterology 2002; 49:1726-7.

Kaneko J, Sugawara Y, Matsui Y, Makuuchi M. Spleen size of live donors for liver transplantation. Surg Radiol Anat 2008; 30:515-8. doi:10.1007/s00276-008-0364-z

Lamb PM, Lund A, Kanagasabay R, Martin A, Webb JA, Reznek RH. Spleen size: how well do linear ultrasound measurements correlate with three-dimensional CT volume assessments? Br J Radiol 2002; 75:573-7.

doi:10.1259/bjr.75.895.750573

Hosey RG, Mattacola CG, Kriss V, Armsey T, Quarles JD, Jagger J. Ultrasound assessment of spleen size in collegiate athletes. Br J Sports Med 2006; 40:251-4.

doi:10.1136/bjsm.2005.022376

Khan SA, Yasmeen S, Adil H, Adil SO, Huda F, Khan S. Sonographic evaluation of normal liver, spleen, and renal parameters in adult population: A Multicenter Study. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2018; 28:834-9.

doi: 10.29271/jcpsp.2018.11.834.

Downloads

Published

2023-08-08

How to Cite

Muhammad, F. S., Farooq, S. M. Y., Asad, N., Akram, S., Hafeez, A., Zafar, S., Zoha Sabeeh, Rashid, U. H., & Khaled Jallad, L. (2023). Sonographic Evaluation of Splenic Dimensions in Healthy Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Women. Journal of the Dow University of Health Sciences (JDUHS), 17(2). https://doi.org/10.36570/jduhs.2023.2.1822

Issue

Section

Original Articles