|
|
||||||||
From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Radiology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Abstract
objective: We evaluated the location of the umbilicus relative to the aortic bifurcation and the left common iliac vein where it crosses the midline.
Methods: Abdominal computed tomography images from 35 reproductive-age women were retrospectively reviewed to determine the location of the umbilicus. The results were correlated with body mass index using Pearson correlation coefficient and a two-tailed paired t test.
Results: The location of the umbilicus, but not the aortic bifurcation, was more caudal in heavier women and negatively correlated with body mass index. In nonobese women, the mean location of the umbilicus was 0.4 cm caudal to the aortic bifurcation, and was at or cephalad to the bifurcation in eight of 15 (53%). In overweight women, the mean umbilical location was 2.4 cm caudal to the bifurcation, and in obese women, 2.9 cm caudal to the bifurcation. In these last two groups of subjects, the umbilicus was located at the level of the bifurcation in six of 20 (30%). In every case, the umbilicus was located cephalad to where the common iliac vein crossed the midline.
Conclusions: The umbilicus is often located at or cephalad to the aortic bifurcation, and consistently located cephalad to where the left common iliac vein crosses the midline. The laparoscopic approach should take these relationships into account to minimize injuries to major retroperitoneal vessels.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
F. Leonard, A. Fotso, B. Borghese, N. Chopin, H. Foulot, and C. Chapron Ureteral complications from laparoscopic hysterectomy indicated for benign uterine pathologies: a 13-year experience in a continuous series of 1300 patients Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2007; 22(7): 2006 - 2011. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. H. NEZHAT, F. NEZHAT, A. I. BRILL, and C. NEZHAT Normal Variations of Abdominal and Pelvic Anatomy Evaluated at Laparoscopy Obstet. Gynecol., August 1, 1999; 94(2): 238 - 242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |