title: Ultrasonographic measurement of normal common bile duct diameter and its correlation with age, sex and anthropometry.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Ultrasonography is the diagnostic method of choice for visualization and rational work-up of abdominal organs. The dilatation of the common bile duct helps distinguish obstructive from non-obstructive causes of jaundice. Availability of normal measurements of the common bile duct is therefore important. There exists significant variations in the anthropometric features of various populations, regions and races.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  Study was conducted to obtain data on sonographically measured diameters of common bile duct in a series of normal Rajasthani population and to measure its correlation with age, sex and anthropometry.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cross-sectional hospital-based study conducted at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, India.
  
  
  METHODS
  Study included 200 participants with equal proportion belonging to either sex. Common bile duct was measured at three locations- at the porta hepatis, in the most distal aspect of head of pancreas and mid-way between these points. Anthropometric measurements including height, weight, chest circumference, circumference at transpyloric plane, circumference at umbilicus and circumference at hip were obtained using standard procedures.
  
  
  METHODS
  Univariable analysis with measures of frequency and standard deviation and bivariable analysis using correlation.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Mean age of study subjects was 34.5 years (Range 18-85 years). Mean diameters of the common bile duct in the three locations were: proximal, 4.0 mm (SD 1.02 mm); middle, 4.1 mm (SD 1.01 mm); and distal, 4.2 mm (SD 1.01 mm) and overall mean for all measures 4.1 mm (SD 1.01 mm). Average diameter ranged from 2.0 mm to 7.9 mm, with 95 percent of the subjects having a diameter of less than 6 mm. We observed a statistically significant relation of common bile duct with age, along with a linear trend. There was no statistically significant difference in common bile duct diameter between male and female subjects. The diameter did not show any statistically significant correlation with any of the anthropometric measurements.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our study reported the upper limit of normality as 7.9 mm. The diameter increased progressively from 3.9 mm among those aged 18-25 years to 4.7 mm among those in the age group more than 55 years. This was found to be statistically significant. Ductal diameters beyond these limits should prompt the need for further investigations.
authors: Demonstrator, Department of Anatomy, College of Medicine & Sagore Dutta Hospital , Kolkata, India .
authors: Nidhi
authors: N
authors: Lal
authors: Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital , Jaipur, India .
authors: Simmi
authors: S
authors: Mehra
authors: Regional Medical Advisor (East), GLRA-India .
authors: Vivek
authors: V
authors: Lal
keywords: Anthropometry; Common bile duct; Ultrasonography
references: Hepatogastroenterology. 2005 Nov-Dec;52(66):1659-61
references: 16334751
references: Radiology. 1978 Sep;128(3):719-25
references: 674645
references: Gut Liver. 2009 Dec;3(4):306-10
references: 20431765
references: Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Mar;63(3):403-8
references: 16500387
references: Ethiop Med J. 2008 Oct;46(4):391-5
references: 19271404
references: Ital J Gastroenterol. 1991 Mar-Apr;23 (3):136-7
references: 1742508
references: Eur J Radiol. 1981 May;1(2):171-2
references: 7338243
references: Radiology. 1979 Dec;133(3 Pt 1):703-7
references: 504652
references: J Clin Ultrasound. 1983 Jan;11(1):23-7
references: 6403584
references: J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 1997;72 (3-4):257-83
references: 17216989
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1978 Apr;130(4):701-9
references: 205124
references: Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Mar;77(3):319-27
references: 23410693
references: J Ultrasound Med. 2003 Sep;22(9):879-82; quiz 883-5
references: 14510259
references: Am J Gastroenterol. 1992 Apr;87(4):489-92
references: 1553936
references: J Clin Ultrasound. 1984 Oct;12(8):473-8
references: 6436325
references: Br J Radiol. 1980 Aug;53(632):774-80
references: 7437688
references: World J Gastroenterol. 2006 May 28;12(20):3162-7
references: 16718834
references: Crit Care Clin. 1994 Apr;10 (2):297-319
references: 8012843
references: Radiology. 1978 Nov;129(2):477-80
references: 704864
references: Eur J Radiol. 1983 May;3(2):115-7
references: 6873071