Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 9; Issue 3.2 (August 2021)

Page No.: 8054-8058

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2021.134

Morphometric Liver Study in Adults

Seye C *1, Ndoye JM 2, Wade R 2, Mar NB 3, Ndiaye Ab 2.

*1 Alioune Diop University, Bambey, Senegal, Africa.

2 Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal, Africa.

3 Iba Nder Thiam University in Thiès, Senegal, Africa.

Corresponding Author: Seye Cheikh, Alioune Diop University, Bambey, Senegal, Africa.   Phone : 773153569 E-Mail: seyect@yahoo.fr            


Background: The aim is to study the dimensions of the adult liver in Senegal in order to contribute to the data of the manufacture of a peri-hepatic prosthesis wrapping in the therapeutic means of post-traumatic hemorrhagic lesions of the liver.

Materials and methods: This study involved 50 livers of anatomical subjects with an average age of 38 years. We have noted some biometric parameters. On the livers collected, we measured the weight and some dimensions.

Results: The intermediate morphotype predomined with 48% of cases. The dorso-petal position of the liver was observed in 84% of the subjects. There was no correlation between the morphotype of the subjects and the orientation of the visceral face of the liver. The average liver weight was 1410 g. The average transverse diameter was 25.77cm while the antero-posterior diameter of the right lobe was 16 cm. The sagittal circumference of the liver in the sickle cell ligament was significantly lower than those measured at the right and left lobes. The sagittal circumferences of the liver in the Breviligneous subject were lower than those of the intermediate and long morphotype subjects.

Conclusion: The choke zone between the two lobes of the liver in the sickle cell ligament is a mooring point for the peri-hepatic wrapping prosthesis. However, this can only be segmental for each right and left lobe. The morphotype of the subject, however, affects the weight, thickness and sagittal circumferences of the liver, which are essential for the dimensions of a peri-hepatic prosthesis.

Key words: Liver morphometric, peri-hepatic prosthesis.


[1]. Leguerrier A. N.D.A. Scientific and Legal Editions, Paris, 1993;127-131.
[2]. Lanchou G, Mountain M, Pellet L. About the furrows of the convex face of the liver. Bull Ass Anat, 1965 ;126:947-958.
[3]. Rosset E, Brunet C, Meunier B, Marie P, Di Marino V, Argème M, Farisse J. Anatomical liver study. Development of a peri-hepatic prosthesis. Surg Radiol Anat, 1995;17:1-5.
[4]. Brunet C, Sielezneff L, Thomas P, Thirion X, Sastre B, Farisse J. The treatment of liver trauma from a peri-hepatic prosthesis net. Trauma J, 1994 ;200-204.
[5]. Bouchet A, Spoon J. Anatomy, descriptive and functional topography, volume2, 2nd edition, Masson, Paris, 1991, 1145p.
[6]. Didansky M. The various types of shape and position of the organs of the human body. Bull Soc anat, Paris, 1925;95:13-22.
[7]. Dufour R, Rigaud A, Dejussieu J, Soutoul J. Consideration on the orientation and morphology of the underside of the liver, their relationship with the topographical situation of the umbilical. Bull Ass Anat, 1961;110:274-279.
[8]. Pietri H, Boscaini M, Berthezene P, Durbec JP, Cros R, Sarles H, DM. Hepatic Morphotypes, their statistical individualization using ultra-sonography. J Ultrasound Med 1988;189-196.
[9]. Rouvière H, Delmas A. Human Anatomy Volume II 4th edition, Masson, Paris, 1997;432-459.
[10]. Kamina P, Di Marino V. Precise clinical anatomy volume 2. In : Maloine, Paris ; 2002.
[11]. Couinaud C. Liver, anatomical and surgical studies, Masson, Paris, 1957;223-247.
[12]. Castaing D, Veilhan L A. Anatomy of the liver and bile ducts. EMC (Elsevier Masson SAS, Paris), Hepatology, 2008;39 :7- 001-A-10,
[13]. Knight J M. Anatomy, trunk 1st edition, Science Medicine Flammarion, Paris, 1998;212-225.
[14]. Drake R L, Vogl. W, Mitchell A W M. Gray’s anatomy, abdomen, liver. Elsevier Masson SAS, 2006;296-299.

Cite this article: Seye C, Ndoye JM, Wade R, Mar NB, Ndiaye Ab. Morphometric Liver Study in Adults. Int J Anat Res 2021;9(3.2):8054-8058. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2021.134