Assessing the Impact of Optimized Ultrasound Methods on Gallstone Detection in Obese Patients
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v7i3.2245Keywords:
Cholelithiasis; Ultrasonography; Obesity; Gallbladder Diseases; Diagnostic ImagingAbstract
Gallstone disease is a common hepatobiliary disorder, and ultrasonography remains the first-line imaging modality for its diagnosis. However, diagnostic performance may be reduced in obese patients due to increased soft-tissue attenuation, suboptimal acoustic windows, and limited gallbladder visualization. Optimized ultrasound techniques may improve image quality and diagnostic yield in this high-risk population. Objective: To assess the impact of optimized ultrasound methods on gallstone detection in obese patients at a tertiary care hospital. Methods: This prospective comparative diagnostic accuracy study was conducted in the Department of Radiology, Jinnah Hospital, Abbottabad, Pakistan, from July to November 2024. A total of 97 consecutive obese adults with suspected gallstone disease or referred for hepatobiliary ultrasonography were enrolled. Each participant underwent two sequential examinations during the same visit: a routine standard ultrasound followed by an optimized ultrasound assessment that incorporated patient repositioning, use of multiple acoustic windows, machine settings adjusted for deeper penetration, tissue harmonic imaging where available, and graded compression. The primary outcome was the incremental detection yield of optimized ultrasound for gallstone identification. Secondary outcomes included technical adequacy, conclusive scan rate, repeat imaging requirement, and diagnostic performance against the final reference standard. Results: The mean age of participants was 44.8 ± 11.6 years, and 63 (64.9%) were women. Gallstones were detected in 68 patients (70.1%) by standard ultrasonography and in 82 patients (84.5%) by optimized ultrasonography, yielding an absolute increase of 14.4%. Satisfactory gallbladder visualization improved from 73.2% to 89.7%, while conclusive examinations increased from 68.0% to 86.6%. Repeat imaging requirement decreased from 21.6% to 8.2%. Compared with the reference standard, optimized ultrasonography demonstrated higher sensitivity (95.3% vs 79.1%) and overall diagnostic accuracy (93.8% vs 80.4%) than the standard method, while specificity remained similar. Conclusion: Optimized ultrasound methods significantly improved gallbladder visualization and gallstone detection in obese patients. These findings support the routine use of protocol-based ultrasound optimization in obese individuals undergoing evaluation for suspected gallstone disease in tertiary care settings.
Downloads
References
1. Wang X, Yu W, Jiang G, Li H, Li S, Xie L, et al. Global epidemiology of gallstones in the 21st century: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024;22(8):1586-1595. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.051
2. Unalp-Arida A, Ruhl CE. Increasing gallstone disease prevalence and associations with gallbladder and biliary tract mortality in the United States. Hepatology. 2023;77(6):1882-1895. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/HEP.0000000000000264
3. Liu S, Yi M, Qin J, et al. The increasing incidence and high body mass index-related burden of gallbladder and biliary diseases: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:1002325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.1002325
4. Stokes CS, Gluud LL, Casper M, Lammert F. Ursodeoxycholic acid and diets higher in fat prevent gallbladder stones during weight loss: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12(7):1090-1100.e2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2013.11.031
5. Méndez-Sánchez N, Chávez-Tapia NC, Uribe M. Obesity and gallstones. Curr Med Chem. 2019;26(19):3407-3423.
6. Gu S, Hu S, Wang S, Qi C, Shi C, Fan G. Bidirectional association between NAFLD and gallstone disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;17(3):283-293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17474124.2023.2175671
7. Ahmed AS, Ahmed F, Khan M, et al. Advancements in cholelithiasis diagnosis: a systematic review of machine learning applications in imaging analysis. Cureus. 2024;16(8):e66453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.66453
8. Wu X, Li K, Kou S, Zhang Z. The accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in the detection of gallbladder disease: a meta-analysis. Acad Radiol. 2024;31(7):1336-1343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2023.09.029
9. Uppot RN. Technical challenges of imaging and image-guided interventions in obese patients. Br J Radiol. 2018;91(1089):20170931. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170931
10. Maar M, Lee J, Tardi A, et al. Inter-transducer variability of ultrasound image quality in obese adults: qualitative and quantitative comparisons. Clin Imaging. 2022;92:63-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2022.09.010
11. Heinitz S, Müller J, Jenderka KV, Schlögl H, et al. The application of high-performance ultrasound probes increases anatomic depiction in obese patients. Sci Rep. 2023;13:16297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43509-9
12. Kazmi T, Nagi MLF, Razzaq S, Hussnain S, Shahid N, Athar U. Burden of noncommunicable diseases in Pakistan. East Mediterr Health J. 2022;28(11):798-804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26719/emhj.22.083
13. Noureen S, Khan NA, Ali N, et al. Exploring the patterns of gallbladder diseases and associated risk factors in a tertiary care hospital of Mardan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan. Cureus. 2025;17(1):e78093. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.78093
14. Brahee DD, Ogedegbe C, Hassler C, et al. Body mass index and abdominal ultrasound image quality: a pilot survey of sonographers. J Diagn Med Sonogr. 2013;29(2):66-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/8756479313476919
15. Zhang Y, Li Y, Chen C, et al. Association between metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and gallstones in the US population using propensity score matching. Sci Rep. 2025;15:1682. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-85218-5
16. Amin A, Haider MI, Aamir IS, Khan MS, Khalid Choudry U, Amir M, et al. Preoperative and operative risk factors for conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open cholecystectomy in Pakistan. Cureus. 2019;11(8):e5446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.5446
17. Tanveer M, Hohmann A, Roy N, et al. The current prevalence of underweight, overweight, and obesity associated with demographic factors among Pakistani school-aged children and adolescents: an empirical cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(18):11619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811619
18. Sahoo JK, Panda P, Bariha PK. Demographic and risk-factor profile of patients with gallstone disease in Central India. J Clin Diagn Res. 2022;16(6):PC01-PC05.
19. Esen I, Arslan H, Akturk Esen S, et al. Early prediction of gallstone disease with a machine learning-based method from bioimpedance and laboratory data. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024;103(8):e37258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000037258
20. Ali A, Perveen S, Khan I, et al. Symptomatic gallstones in young patients under the age of 30 years. Cureus. 2021;13(11):e19894. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.19894
21. Wu X, Song Y, Wu S, et al. The development and evaluation of nine obesity-based indices for gallstones in U.S. adults. Int J Surg. 2025;111:2348-2357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000002237
22. Soomro U, Abbas G, Aslam M, et al. Frequency of gallstones in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Cureus. 2025;17(6):e85508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.85508
23. Soomro U, Abbas G, Aslam M, et al. Predictors of gallstones in patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD). Cureus. 2025;17(5):e85073. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.85073
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Omaira Malik, Zuhra Farid, Uswa Noor, . Shamsa, Alia Wazir, Maria Imtiaz, Sara Kamal

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.





