Others

Ultrasonography

Page: 6 of 7

Ultrasonography-measured intra-abdominal fat thickness is generally a similar or stronger predictor of CT-measured intra-abdominal fat compared to anthropometric measures such as body mass index, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, sagittal diameter, or skinfolds (20-24), or other clinical measures such as bioelectrical impedance analysis and DEXA (21). Furthermore, ultrasonography is a better measure of changes in intra-abdominal fat compared to waist-to-hip ratio (25). It is unclear whether ultrasonography is a better predictor of changes in intra-abdominal fat compared to waist circumference.

There is evidence that ultrasonography-measured intra-abdominal fat is a stronger predictor of health risk than simple anthropometric measures. Though some have reported that ultrasonography-measured intra-abdominal fat is a weaker predictor of health risk compared to waist circumference or DEXA (15), others have suggested that ultrasonography is a better measure of cardiovascular risk compared to waist circumference (19, 22) and sagittal diameter (19). Some have also reported that ultrasonography-measured intra-abdominal fat may be comparable to CT-measured intra-abdominal fat in predicting alterations in glucose metabolism and fasting lipid levels (26-28). However, few studies have compared the utility of ultrasonography- and CT-measured intra-abdominal fat in predicting health risk, and their findings should be verified with further research.

To date, there is limited research on the usefulness of ultrasonography in assessing health risk compared to CT-measured intra-abdominal adiposity or anthropometric tools. Currently, ultrasonography appears to be a potentially useful clinical tool for assessing intra-abdominal fat and obesity-related health risk. However, further research is needed to confirm these findings.

Reference

close

15. dos Santos RE, Aldrighi JM, Lanz JR, et al. Relationship of body fat distribution by waist circumference, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and ultrasonography to insulin resistance by homeostasis model assessment and lipid profile in obese and non-obese postmenopausal women. Gynecol Endocrinol 2005; 21: 295-301.

19. Leite CC, Wajchenberg BL, Radominski R, et al. Intra-abdominal thickness by ultrasonography to predict risk factors for cardiovascular disease and its correlation with anthropometric measurements. Metabolism 2002; 51: 1034-40.

20. Tornaghi G, Raiteri R, Pozzato C, et al. Anthropometric or ultrasonic measurements in assessment of visceral fat? A comparative study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1994; 18: 771-5.

21. Kim SK, Kim HJ, Hur KY, et al. Visceral fat thickness measured by ultrasonography can estimate not only visceral obesity but also risks of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. Am J Clin Nutr 2004; 79: 593-9.

22. Armellini F, Zamboni M, Rigo L, et al. The contribution of sonography to the measurement of intra-abdominal fat. J Clin Ultrasound 1990; 18: 563-7.

23. Ribeiro-Filho FF, Faria AN, Azjen S, et al. Methods of estimation of visceral fat: advantages of ultrasonography. Obes Res 2003; 11: 1488-94.

24. Armellini F, Zamboni M, Robbi R, et al. Total and intra-abdominal fat measurements by ultrasound and computerized tomography. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1993; 17: 209-14.

25. Armellini F, Zamboni M, Rigo L, et al. Sonography detection of small intra-abdominal fat variations. Int J Obes 1991; 15: 847-52.

26. Ribeiro-Filho FF, Faria AN, Kohlmann O, Jr., et al. Ultrasonography for the evaluation of visceral fat and cardiovascular risk. Hypertension 2001; 38: 713-7.

27. Armellini F, Zamboni M, Harris T, et al. Sagittal diameter minus subcutaneous thickness. An easy-to-obtain parameter that improves visceral fat prediction. Obes Res 1997; 5: 315-20.

28. Liu KH, Chan YL, Chan WB, et al. Sonographic measurement of mesenteric fat thickness is a good correlate with cardiovascular risk factors: comparison with subcutaneous and preperitoneal fat thickness, magnetic resonance imaging and anthropometric indexes. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2003; 27: 1267-73.

Page: 6 of 7

Print this document