title: Three-dimensional growth dynamics of the liver in the human fetus.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The fetal liver is indubitably the earliest and the most severely affected organ by abnormal fetal growth. The size of the fetal liver assessed by three-dimensional ultrasonography is indispensable in determining the status of fetal growth, nutrition and maturity, and in the early recognition and monitoring fetal micro- and macrosomias. The aim of the present study was to measure the human fetal liver length, transverse and sagittal diameters to establish their age-specific reference intervals, the 3rd, 10th, 50th, 90th, and 97th smoothed centile curves, and the relative growth of the liver calculated for the 50th centile.
  
  
  METHODS
  Using anatomical, digital (NIS-Elements AR 3.0, Nikon) and statistical methods (one-way ANOVA test for paired data and post hoc RIR Tukey test, Shapiro-Wilk test, Fisher's test, Student's t test, the Altman-Chitty method), length, transverse and sagittal diameters of the liver for the 3rd, 10th, 50th, 90th, and 97th centiles were assessed in 69 human fetuses of both sexes (32 males and 37 females) aged 18-30 weeks, derived from spontaneous abortions or stillbirths.
  
  
  RESULTS
  No male-female differences (P > 0.05) concerning the three parameters studied were found. During the study period, the fetal liver increased tri-dimensionally: in length from 19.51 ± 1.02 to 39.65 ± 7.05 mm, in transverse diameter from 29.44 ± 3.73 to 53.13 ± 5.31 mm, and in sagittal diameter from 22.97 ± 3.79 to 43.22 ± 5.49 mm. The natural logarithmic models were found to fit the data with gestational age (P < 0.001) in the following five cutoff points: 3rd, 10th, 50th, 90th and 97th centiles. The values of liver parameters in relation to gestational age in weeks were calculated by the following logarithmic regressions: y = -82.778 + 35.752 × ln(age) ± Z × (-2.778 + 0.308 × age) for liver length, y = -123.06 + 52.668 × ln(age) ± Z × (3.156 + 0.049 × age) for liver transverse diameter, and y = -108.94 + 46.052 × ln(age) ± Z × (-0.541 + 0.188 × age) for liver sagittal diameter. For the 50th centile, at the range of 18-30 weeks, the growth rates per week were gradually decreasing from 1.93 to 1.21 mm for length, from 2.85 to 1.79 mm for transverse diameter, and from 2.49 to 1.56 mm for sagittal diameter of the liver (P < 0.05). During the study period both the length-to-transverse diameter ratio and the sagittal-to-transverse diameter ratio of the liver changed little, attaining the values of 0.71 ± 0.11 and 0.87 ± 0.12, respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The fetal liver does not reveal sex differences in its length, transverse and sagittal diameters. The fetal liver length, transverse and sagittal diameters grow logarithmically. The regression equations for the estimation of the mean and standard deviation of liver length, transverse and sagittal diameters allow for calculating any desired centiles according to gestational age. The three-dimensional evolution of the fetal liver follows proportionately. The age-specific reference intervals for evolving liver length, transverse and sagittal diameters constitute the normative values of potential relevance in monitoring normal fetal development and screening for disturbances in fetal growth.
authors: Department of Normal Anatomy, The Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, The Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Łukasiewicza 1 Street, 85-821, Bydgoszcz, Poland, kizanat@cm.umk.pl.
authors: Michał
authors: M
authors: Szpinda
authors: Monika
authors: M
authors: Paruszewska-Achtel
authors: Alina
authors: A
authors: Woźniak
authors: Mateusz
authors: M
authors: Badura
authors: Celestyna
authors: C
authors: Mila-Kierzenkowska
authors: Marcin
authors: M
authors: Wiśniewski
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D047109:Fetal Development / Q000502:physiology*; D005333:Fetus; D006801:Humans; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional / Q000379:methods*; D008099:Liver / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000196:embryology*; D008297:Male; D009929:Organ Size; D011247:Pregnancy; D016216:Ultrasonography, Prenatal / Q000379:methods*
references: Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2001 Mar;36(3):140-2
references: 11783387
references: Surg Radiol Anat. 2013 Dec;35(10):901-16
references: 23543237
references: Surg Radiol Anat. 2013 Oct;35(8):701-11
references: 23455365
references: Surg Radiol Anat. 2013 Jul;35(5):395-402
references: 23192240
references: Surg Radiol Anat. 2013 Apr;35(3):191-203
references: 22986651
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994 May;170(5 Pt 1):1308-12
references: 8178858
references: Surg Radiol Anat. 2012 May;34(4):317-23
references: 21984196
references: J Clin Ultrasound. 2011 Feb;39(2):74-7
references: 21213331
references: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May;31(5):529-34
references: 18432599
references: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Feb;31(2):187-93
references: 18092338
references: J Clin Ultrasound. 2007 Jan;35(1):34-7
references: 17152075
references: Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Jun;43(2):283-97
references: 10863626
references: Surg Radiol Anat. 2014 Oct;36(8):813-20
references: 24535661
references: Lancet. 2014 Sep 6;384(9946):869-79
references: 25209488
references: Ultrasound Med Biol. 1997;23(3):381-9
references: 9160906
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Mar;180(3 Pt 1):634-8
references: 10076140
references: J Med Assoc Thai. 2004 Jul;87(7):750-4
references: 15521228
references: Saudi Med J. 2005 Nov;26(11):1710-5
references: 16311653
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Apr;194(4):1088-99
references: 16580300
references: Surg Radiol Anat. 2013 Jan;35(1):25-38
references: 22777511
references: Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1990;29(1):26-31
references: 2190877
references: Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1989;28(4):198-201
references: 2695412
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989 Jul;161(1):42-6
references: 2665498
references: Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Oct;66(4):477-80
references: 3900834
references: Early Hum Dev. 2004 Oct;80(1):1-5
references: 15363834
references: Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003 Aug;29(8):1123-9
references: 12946515
references: Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2002 Nov-Dec;5(6):559-78
references: 12399830
references: J Ultrasound Med. 2002 Apr;21(4):361-6
references: 11934092
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 May;184(6):1251-5
references: 11349197
references: Surg Radiol Anat. 2014 Jan;36(1):55-65
references: 23778946