BACKGROUND: The success of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by transient elastography (TE, FibroScan) is influenced by anthropometric factors. In smaller adults, the M probe may fail due to narrow intercostals spaces and rib interference. We aimed to compare LSM using the FibroScan S2 (pediatric) probe with the M probe in small adults with chronic liver disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 41 liver disease patients and 18 controls with a thoracic perimeter ≤ 75 cm underwent LSM using the FibroScan M and S2 probes. TE failure was defined as no valid LSMs and unreliable examinations as < 10 valid LSMs, an interquartile range (IQR)/LSM > 30%, or success rate < 60%. RESULTS: TE failure was not observed and reliability did not differ between the M and S2 probes (86% vs. 95%; P = 0.20). Liver stiffness measured using the M and S2 probes was highly correlated (ρ = 0.81; P < 0.0005) and median liver stiffness did not differ between probes (4.5 vs. 4.4 kPa; P = 0.10). However, in participants with a skin-capsular distance ≥ 15 mm, median liver stiffness was higher using the S2 probe (5.5 vs. 4.9 kPa; P = 0.008). When compared with validated liver stiffness cut-offs, the S2 probe would have overestimated the stage of fibrosis compared with the M probe in 10% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The FibroScan S2 probe does not improve the feasibility of LSM in adults of smaller stature and may overestimate liver stiffness compared with the M probe. The FibroScan M probe should remain the preferred tool for LSM in small adults with chronic liver disease.
BACKGROUND: The success of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by transient elastography (TE, FibroScan) is influenced by anthropometric factors. In smaller adults, the M probe may fail due to narrow intercostals spaces and rib interference. We aimed to compare LSM using the FibroScan S2 (pediatric) probe with the M probe in small adults with chronic liver disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 41 liver diseasepatients and 18 controls with a thoracic perimeter ≤ 75 cm underwent LSM using the FibroScan M and S2 probes. TE failure was defined as no valid LSMs and unreliable examinations as < 10 valid LSMs, an interquartile range (IQR)/LSM > 30%, or success rate < 60%. RESULTS:TE failure was not observed and reliability did not differ between the M and S2 probes (86% vs. 95%; P = 0.20). Liver stiffness measured using the M and S2 probes was highly correlated (ρ = 0.81; P < 0.0005) and median liver stiffness did not differ between probes (4.5 vs. 4.4 kPa; P = 0.10). However, in participants with a skin-capsular distance ≥ 15 mm, median liver stiffness was higher using the S2 probe (5.5 vs. 4.9 kPa; P = 0.008). When compared with validated liver stiffness cut-offs, the S2 probe would have overestimated the stage of fibrosis compared with the M probe in 10% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The FibroScan S2 probe does not improve the feasibility of LSM in adults of smaller stature and may overestimate liver stiffness compared with the M probe. The FibroScan M probe should remain the preferred tool for LSM in small adults with chronic liver disease.
Authors: Jack X Q Pang; Faruq Pradhan; Scott Zimmer; Sophia Niu; Pam Crotty; Jenna Tracey; Christopher Schneider; Steven J Heitman; Gilaad G Kaplan; Mark G Swain; Robert P Myers Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-03
Authors: Manish Dhyani; Michael S Gee; Joseph Misdraji; Esther Jacobowitz Israel; Uzma Shah; Anthony E Samir Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 1.735