Study reveals anatomical variability in fetal stomach shapes to improve prenatal diagnostics and surgical planning.
The rapid development of fetal surgery and insufficient study of the variability of the shape, size, and topography of the stomach in fetuses determine the relevance of studying the anatomical features of this organ for improving the diagnosis and surgical correction of congenital defects. Аim - to study the anatomical variability of the human fetal stomach at 4–10 months in order to accurately distinguish between normal and pathological development, improve prenatal diagnostics, and aid in planning neonatal surgical interventions. Material and methods. The material for the study was preparations of 70 cadavers of human fetuses of both sexes with a parietal-coccygeal length of 81.0-375.0 mm, which was studied using macropreparation, radiography, morphometry, and statistical data processing methods. Results. In the studied human fetuses, the stomach is completely located to the left of the median plane. The angle between the esophagus and the lesser curvature of the stomach is within 155-190°. In human fetuses, the stomach is completely located to the left of the median plane, mainly vertically at the level of the X thoracic - I-II lumbar vertebrae. At the end of the fetal period of human ontogenesis, a change in the skeletotropic level of the stomach occurs - its displacement in the caudal direction to the height of one vertebra. In late human fetuses, the folding of the gastric mucosa is well expressed. Conclusions. In human fetuses, the following varieties of the stomach shape have been identified: flask-shaped (in the form of a retort) - 56% of cases, horn-shaped (20% of observations), funnel-shaped (14% of fetuses), sac-shaped (10%), rounded (8%) or slightly elongated (2%). During the second half of human intrauterine life, the stomach undergoes intensive development, the dimensions of which increase by 2.1-2.4 times. The study was conducted in accordance with international and national bioethical standards, which was confirmed by the conclusion of the Biomedical Ethics Commission of the Bukovinian State Medical University. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khmara et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: