Online ISSN: 2515-8260

Keywords : Computed Tomography Hounsfield Numbers (CTHFN)


Cross sectional analytical study to determine the range of comparison of computed tomography Hounsfield number in different categories of fatty liver disease by ultrasonography and its comparison with computed tomographic Hounsfield numbers

Dr. Venus Garg, Dr. Monika Sharma, Dr. Ravianka Arora, Dr. Gunraj Singh Mehta, Dr. Sidhant Lochav, Dr. Astha Makkar

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 2022, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages 1135-1141

Objective: The aims of the study were determination of the range of CTHFN in different
categories of FLD by USG and to compare CT Hounsfield Numbers with ultrasonographic
categorization of the FLD.
Material and Methods: It was a cross sectional analytical study. By purposive sampling 186
patients of FLD were sampled from Department of Radiology, Maharishi Markandeswar
Medical College and Hospital Kumarhatti, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, The data was collected
for 9 months. Patients of both gender of age between 20-80 years, who underwent both CT and
USG scans of abdomen and with Ultrasonographic diagnosis of diffuse FLD were included.
The USG categories of FLD were compared with mean liver CTHFN. Statistical analysis was
done by ANOVA; p value of CTHFN was found significant for each Ultrasonographic category
of FLD.
Results: Total 186 patients of FLD were observed. The mean age of population was
51.25±15.32 years and range was 18-72 years. The mean Values of CTHFN of liver was
37.85±13.52 HU and range was-10.65-54.62 HU with significant p value. The frequency of
male population was 113(60.8%) and female was 73 (39.2%). The mild, moderate and severe
FLD was found in 138 (74.2%), 32 (17.2%) and 16 (8.6%) patients respectively. The mean
values of liver CTHFN in mild moderate and sever FLD categories by USG were 41.74±4.88
HU, 23.77±3.89 HU and 3.05±6.79 HU respectively. These values along with P values and
95% Confidence Interval (CI) were analysed. In multiple comparisons the Least Significant
Difference (LSD) of USG categories of FLD with mean liver CTHFN, p value was significant
when mild FLD was compared with moderate and severe FLD, moderate FLD was compared
with mild and severe FLD and severe FLD was compared with mild and moderate FLD.
Conclusion: USG is a reliable and sensitive modality for the grading of FLD