Esta página se tradujo automáticamente y no se garantiza la precisión de la traducción. por favor refiérase a versión inglesa para un texto fuente.

Standing Position Ultrasonography: Imaging Efficacy in Detecting Liver Diaphragmatic Dome Blind Area Lesions

5 de mayo de 2026 actualizado por: Dezhi Zhang, The First Hospital of Jilin University

Study on the Imaging Efficacy of Standing Position Ultrasonography in Detecting Lesions Within the Blind Area Near the Diaphragmatic Dome of the Liver

Objective: To compare the detection efficacy of standing, supine, and left lateral decubitus ultrasonographic scanning for space-occupying lesions ≤3cm in the liver dome "blind area" and assess the feasibility of standing position as a routine scanning posture, providing a theoretical basis for optimizing liver ultrasound protocols.

Methods: Prospectively enrolled patients (CT/MRI-confirmed liver dome lesions) admitted to our Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Department (Feb 2024-Feb 2025). Three sonographers, blinded to other positions' results, performed scans in standing, supine, and left lateral positions. Fleiss' kappa assessed inter-sonographer agreement. An image quality scoring system (0=not visible; 1=partially visible; 2=fully visible) was used by two blinded radiologists. Baseline data (sex, age, BMI), lesion location, size, type, and liver parenchymal status (normal, fatty liver, liver damage [diffuse disease/cirrhosis]) were recorded. Wilcoxon test compared display scores. Subgroup analyses evaluated confounding factors. A Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model controlled repeated-measures bias, reporting ORs.

Descripción general del estudio

Estado

Terminado

Descripción detallada

Patient Collection:

Enroll patients hospitalized in our Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Department between February 2024 and February 2025 with subphrenic liver lesions confirmed by CT or MRI. These patients underwent ultrasound examinations. Collect and record demographic data (sex, age, height, weight, BMI) and lesion characteristics (size, location, type, liver background).

Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Liver dome lesions (≤3 cm) confirmed by CT/MRI (plain + enhanced) within 6 months (for multiple lesions, include the one closest to the diaphragm);
  2. Superior border of lesion ≤1 cm from the diaphragm;
  3. Lesion size ≤3 cm.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Inability to cooperate with three-position ultrasound examination;
  2. Subcutaneous emphysema affecting ultrasound;
  3. Chilaiditi syndrome (interposition of colon).

Equipment & Methods

Equipment:

GE LOGIQ-E9 ultrasound system with C1-6-D low-frequency convex probe.

Procedure:

  1. Patients fasted for 2-3 hours and rested for 10-20 minutes before examination.
  2. Three scanning positions (Fig 2.1):

    • Supine: Arms raised above head, fully exposing intercostal/subcostal areas; back parallel to bed.

      • Left Lateral Decubitus: Arms raised, fully exposed intercostal/subcostal areas; side-facing away from examiner; back perpendicular to bed.

        • Standing: Arms raised, fully exposed intercostal/subcostal areas; upright with body axis vertical to floor.

Ultrasound Image Acquisition:

Three sonographers (>3 years' experience) randomly selected one position per patient. Scanning included intercostal/subcostal approaches. Patients cooperated with breathing/positioning. If a lesion was detected, the clearest image was saved; if not, no image was captured. Sonographers were blinded to lesion presence and prior CT/MRI results. Each sonographer left the room after scanning their assigned position.

Image Quality Evaluation:

Evaluation:

Two blinded radiologists (>3 years' experience) independently scored lesion visibility. Discrepancies were resolved by re-evaluation and consensus. Evaluators were blinded to patient position.

Scoring System:

  1. 2 = Fully visible: Clear lesion without gas/bone shadowing; complete margins; measurable size.
  2. 1 = Partially visible: Suboptimal visualization; obscured by gas/bone; incomplete margins; unmeasurable size.
  3. 0 = Not visible: Undetectable.

Sonographer Consistency Test:

20 randomly selected patients were re-scanned by all three sonographers across all positions. Each sonographer recorded lesion detectability per position.

Bias Control:

Selection Bias: Consecutive enrollment of eligible patients. Sonographer Bias: Blinded scanning; no prior knowledge of CT/MRI/history; Fleiss' kappa for inter-operator consistency.

Reader Bias: Independent blinded scoring with consensus for discrepancies.

Quality Control:

Strict adherence to protocol; trained/certified personnel; standardized data collection/entry/analysis; complete records; predefined statistical methods; unbiased reporting.

Statistical Analysis:

  1. SPSS 26.0 software. Fleiss' kappa assessed inter-sonographer agreement. Normally distributed data: mean±SD; non-normal: median (IQR). Friedman test compared scores across positions; Wilcoxon signed-rank test for pairwise comparisons. Significance: P<0.05.
  2. Subgroup Analysis: Stratified by BMI (normal/underweight, overweight/obese), liver background (normal, fatty liver, liver damage [diffuse disease/cirrhosis]), lesion location (S4, S7, S8), size (0-1 cm, 1.1-2.0 cm, 2.1-3.0 cm), and type (HCC, non-HCC). Non-parametric tests repeated per subgroup.
  3. Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE): Binary logistic model (patient ID as subject variable; outcome: complete visibility) with exchangeable working correlation matrix. Covariates: position (supine as reference), location (S8 as reference), liver background, lesion type, size, and BMI. Results: OR (95% CI). Sensitivity analysis compared exchangeable, AR1, and unstructured correlation matrices.

Tipo de estudio

De observación

Inscripción (Actual)

95

Contactos y Ubicaciones

Esta sección proporciona los datos de contacto de quienes realizan el estudio e información sobre dónde se lleva a cabo este estudio.

Ubicaciones de estudio

    • Jilin
      • Changchun, Jilin, Porcelana, 130000
        • The First Hospital of Jilin University

Criterios de participación

Los investigadores buscan personas que se ajusten a una determinada descripción, denominada criterio de elegibilidad. Algunos ejemplos de estos criterios son el estado de salud general de una persona o tratamientos previos.

Criterio de elegibilidad

Edades elegibles para estudiar

  • Niño
  • Adulto
  • Adulto Mayor

Acepta Voluntarios Saludables

No

Método de muestreo

Muestra de probabilidad

Población de estudio

Enroll patients hospitalized in our Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Department between February 2024 and February 2025 with subphrenic liver lesions confirmed by CT or MRI. These patients underwent ultrasound examinations. Collect and record demographic data (sex, age, height, weight, BMI) and lesion characteristics (size, location, type, liver background).

Descripción

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Liver dome lesions (≤3 cm) confirmed by CT/MRI (plain + enhanced) within 6 months (for multiple lesions, include the one closest to the diaphragm);
  2. Superior border of lesion ≤1 cm from the diaphragm;
  3. Lesion size ≤3 cm.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Inability to cooperate with three-position ultrasound examination;
  2. Subcutaneous emphysema affecting ultrasound;
  3. Chilaiditi syndrome (interposition of colon).

Plan de estudios

Esta sección proporciona detalles del plan de estudio, incluido cómo está diseñado el estudio y qué mide el estudio.

¿Cómo está diseñado el estudio?

Detalles de diseño

Cohortes e Intervenciones

Grupo / Cohorte
Three scanning positions

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Liver dome lesions (≤3 cm) confirmed by CT/MRI (plain + enhanced) within 6 months (for multiple lesions, include the one closest to the diaphragm);
  2. Superior border of lesion ≤1 cm from the diaphragm;
  3. Lesion size ≤3 cm.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Inability to cooperate with three-position ultrasound examination;
  2. Subcutaneous emphysema affecting ultrasound;
  3. Chilaiditi syndrome (interposition of colon).

Equipment:

GE LOGIQ-E9 ultrasound system with C1-6-D low-frequency convex probe.

Procedure:

  1. Patients fasted for 2-3 hours and rested for 10-20 minutes before examination.
  2. Three scanning positions :

Supine: Arms raised above head, fully exposing intercostal/subcostal areas; back parallel to bed.

Left Lateral Decubitus: Arms raised, fully exposed intercostal/subcostal areas; side-facing away from examiner; back perpendicular to bed.

Standing: Arms raised, fully exposed intercostal/subcostal areas; upright with body axis vertical to floor.

¿Qué mide el estudio?

Medidas de resultado primarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Evaluation of Image Display Effects Under Three Body Positions
Periodo de tiempo: The time from discovery of the space-occupying lesion to image acquisition was less than six months

Two ultrasound physicians, each with over three years of experience, independently evaluated the visibility of space-occupying lesions in the acquired images. If their initial assessments differed, they re-evaluated the images and reached a consensus through discussion. Both physicians were blinded to the patient's scanning position during evaluation.

Scoring Criteria:

A three-point scoring system was used to assess the visibility of lesions near the diaphragmatic dome (refer to Figures 2.2 and 2.3 for examples):

Score 2 (Fully Visible): The space-occupying lesion is clearly visualized without obscuration by gas or ribs. Margins are complete, and lesion size can be accurately measured.

Score 1 (Partially Visible): The space-occupying lesion is visualized suboptimally, obscured by gas or ribs. Margins are incomplete, and lesion size cannot be accurately measured.

Score 0 (Not Visible): The space-occupying lesion is completely undetectable.

The time from discovery of the space-occupying lesion to image acquisition was less than six months

Colaboradores e Investigadores

Aquí es donde encontrará personas y organizaciones involucradas en este estudio.

Fechas de registro del estudio

Estas fechas rastrean el progreso del registro del estudio y los envíos de resultados resumidos a ClinicalTrials.gov. Los registros del estudio y los resultados informados son revisados ​​por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (NLM) para asegurarse de que cumplan con los estándares de control de calidad específicos antes de publicarlos en el sitio web público.

Fechas importantes del estudio

Inicio del estudio (Actual)

1 de febrero de 2024

Finalización primaria (Actual)

1 de febrero de 2025

Finalización del estudio (Actual)

1 de julio de 2025

Fechas de registro del estudio

Enviado por primera vez

5 de mayo de 2026

Primero enviado que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

5 de mayo de 2026

Publicado por primera vez (Actual)

12 de mayo de 2026

Actualizaciones de registros de estudio

Última actualización publicada (Actual)

12 de mayo de 2026

Última actualización enviada que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

5 de mayo de 2026

Última verificación

1 de mayo de 2026

Más información

Términos relacionados con este estudio

Plan de datos de participantes individuales (IPD)

¿Planea compartir datos de participantes individuales (IPD)?

NO

Información sobre medicamentos y dispositivos, documentos del estudio

Estudia un producto farmacéutico regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Estudia un producto de dispositivo regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Esta información se obtuvo directamente del sitio web clinicaltrials.gov sin cambios. Si tiene alguna solicitud para cambiar, eliminar o actualizar los detalles de su estudio, comuníquese con register@clinicaltrials.gov. Tan pronto como se implemente un cambio en clinicaltrials.gov, también se actualizará automáticamente en nuestro sitio web. .

Suscribir