| Literature DB >> 28255371 |
A M Lăpădat1, I R Jianu2, B S Ungureanu2, L M Florescu1, D I Gheonea2, S Sovaila3, I A Gheonea1.
Abstract
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is an ailment affecting and increasing a number of people worldwide diagnosed via non-invasive imaging techniques, at a time when a minimum harm caused by medical procedures is rightfully emphasized, more sought after, than ever before. Liver steatosis should not be taken lightly even if its evolution is largely benign as it has the potential to develop into non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or even more concerning, hepatic cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Traditionally, liver biopsy has been the standard for diagnosing this particular liver disease, but nowadays, a consistent number of imagistic methods are available for diagnosing hepatosteatosis and choosing the one appropriate to the clinical context is the key. Although different in sensitivity and specificity when it comes to determining the hepatic fat fraction (FF), these imaging techniques possessing a diverse availability, operating difficulty, cost, and reproducibility are invaluable to any modern physician. Ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), elastography, and spectroscopy will be discussed in order to lay out the advantages and disadvantages of their diagnostic potential and application. Although imagistics has given physicians a valuable insight into the means of managing NAFLD, the current methods are far from perfect, but given the time, they will surely be improved and the use of liver biopsy will be completely removed.Entities:
Keywords: hepatosteatosis; non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; non-invasive imaging techniques
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28255371 PMCID: PMC5304366
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Life ISSN: 1844-122X
Current available methods and availability for liver steatosis assessment
| Technique | Availability | Patient risk | Procedure duration | Operating difficulty | Procedure cost | Accuracy in determining hepatic lipid content | Reproducibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | None | Low | Low | Low | Low to mild hepatosteatosis | Fair | |
| High | Possible radiation hazard | Fair | Low | Fair | Low to mild hepatosteatosis | Fair | |
| Fair | None | High | Fair | High | High | High | |
| Low | None | High | High | High | High | High | |
Characteristics and classification of hepatic steatosis
| Hepatic echogenicity | Level of hepatosteatosis |
| Normal | 0 |
| Simply increased | 1 (mild) |
| Echogenic walls of portal vein branches obscured by liver echogenicity | 2 (moderate) |
| Diaphragmatic outline obscured by liver echogenicity | 3 (severe) |
Grading of hepatic steatosis
| grade 0 (normal) = up to 10% of the cells affected; |
| grade 1 (mild) = 10–33% of the cells affected; |
| grade 2 (moderate) = 34–66% of the cells affected; |
| grade 3 (severe) = ≥ 67% of the cells affected; |