Three years ago I was diagnosed with haemochromatosis following some elevated liver function readings. A liver biopsy showed that the haemochromatosis had damaged the liver and caused cirrhosis. The biopsy read :-
“The liver architecture is disturbed with increased
fibrousFibrous dysplasia tissue and the appearances are those of an established micronodular cirrhosis. Large amounts of haemosiderin pigment are present within the
hepaticAmebic liver abscess
Hepatic hemangioma
Hepatic ischemia
Hepatic vein obstruction (budd-chiari)
Liver transplant
Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiogram
Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (tips) parenchyma and iron containing pigment is also quite prominently displayed within the bile duct epithelium. All of the appearances are entirely typical of
primaryPrimary amyloidosis
Primary biliary cirrhosis
Primary hyperparathyroidism
Primary insomnia
Primary lymphoma of the brain haemochromatosis.”
Since then
phlebotomyVenipuncture has brought the
ferritin level under
controlControl
Control rx and for the last 18 months, liver function tests, taken at three month intervals, have returned to normal.
I have also had a total of four abdominal ultrasounds, the first three of which showed “mild hepatosplenomegaly with liver of slightly increased echogenicity but no focal lesions.” However, the latest ultrasound report reads:-
“There is no hepatosplenomegaly on this occasion. The liver parenchyma is slightly coarse in texture with increased reflectivity but no focal abnormality evident”.
I have three questions:-
(1) Looking at the range of cirrhosis of the liver, how serious is “micronodular cirrhosis”?
(2) Am I correct in assuming that the normal liver function tests, and the absence of hepatosplenomegaly, should both be viewed as positive signs?
(3) What does “the liver parenchyma is slightly coarse in texture with increased reflectivity” mean?