82 - Foundational Metrics of the Greater Omentum: A Cadaveric Study

Poster Board Number: 82
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Abstract Body : Introduction: The greater omentum has impressive regenerative and immunological functions, serving a versatile role in medical and surgical research. From neoangiogenesis to tissue regeneration to flap-based breast reconstruction, the greater omentum has been used in a variety of unlikely, but innovative ways. This apron-shaped peritoneal tissue, spanning over the abdominal viscera, exhibits variability in its size and shape. Despite its clinical importance, the anatomy of the greater omentum has not been systematically characterized. This research aims to collect and analyze biometrics of the greater omentum using cadavers.
Methods: Greater omenta metrics were collected from 27 embalmed cadavers from a medical school gross anatomy course. The cadaver ages ranged from 59 to 99 years old, with 11 females and 16 males. Once dissected from its attachments, the omenta were photographed and weighed for mass and measured for volume and depth. ImageJ was used to calculate length, width, and surface area. Statistical analysis using R compared anatomical parameters with age and sex using a student’s t-test.
Results: Mean omental mass was 81.1 ± 10.1 g with a range of 24.7 to 651.9 g. Mean volume was 222.1 ± 159.0 ml with a range of 40.0 to 700.0 ml. Mean surface area was 440.8 ± 152.5 cm3 with a range of 188.5 to 725.8 cm3. Mean length was 17.8 ± 4.7 cm with a range of 7.8 to 29.4 cm. Mean width was 39.3 ± 7.8 cm with a range of 19.7 to 51.7 cm. Mass, volume, surface area, and average depth demonstrated statistically significant differences between females and males (P < 0.05). Length and width between sexes demonstrated nonsignificant differences (P = 0.10 and 0.07, respectively). Density across all ages and between sexes was consistent at approximately 0.9 g/ml. Mass and volume demonstrated a linear correlation, regardless of sex. Female omental mass and volume appeared to linearly decrease with age, which was not observed in male omenta. Omental morphology was observed to be variable, but is on a spectrum between standard apron-shaped and triangular-shaped.
Conclusion: The anatomy of the greater omentum has been a focus for several researchers, including Liebermann-Meffert in 1983 and Das in 1981. Since their research of omental length and width, there has not been a systematic survey of greater omenta biometrics. Biometric averages from this study were comparatively lower than previous studies. The disagreement with previously published findings could be attributed to the fixation process, elderly cadavers, unknown abdominal medical or surgical history, small sample size, and sample population differences. It is also known that the greater omentum changes morphology and size based on demographic characteristics such as BMI, which unfortunately was unavailable from the cadavers in this study.
Significance: Greater omenta biometrics are important for understanding different morphologies and functions. This foundational knowledge will promote future studies of the greater omentum in medical and surgical applications.