Volume determinations of the whole prostate and of the adenoma by transrectal ultrasound: correlation with surgical specimen |
| |
| Authors: | Cabello Benavente R Jara Rascón J Monzó J I López Díez I Subirá Ríos D Lledó García E Herranz Amo F Hernández Fernández C |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Servicio de Urología. Hospital General Universitario. Gregorio Marañón. Madrid;1. Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO;2. Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO;1. Department of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;2. Department of Biomedical Engineering & Physics, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;3. Department of Pathology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;4. Department of Radiology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;5. Department of Urology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;1. Glickman Urologic and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH;2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH;1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, School of Medicine, Rochester, MN;2. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, School of Medicine, Rochester, MN;3. Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, School of Medicine, Rochester, MN;1. Departments of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905.;2. Urology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905;3. Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905. |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectiveWe evaluated whether preoperative transrecta ultrasound (TRUS) mesaurements of the transition zone (TZ) and total prostate volumen predict real prostatic weight.Material y MethodsWe compare estimated TRUS volumes with surgical specimen weight, in surgically treated patients with localized prostate cancer (group A, n=33) or benign prostatic hyperplasia (group B, n=37). The volume was calculated by the ellipsoid formula. Both measurements were compared with surgical specimen weight, assuming 1 as specific prostate weight.ResultsGroup A: mean prostate measured volume was 38,6 cc. (SD 22,7), mean RP specimen weight was 54,2 g (SD 27,2)(p=0,001). Total estimated prostate volume underestimated prostatectomy specimen weight by 29%. In order to adequate the estimated volume to the specimen weight, we calculated the formula: estimated prostate weight=0,95 x prostatic measured volume + 17,657 (p=0,005).Group B: mean TZ measured volume was 62,8 cc. (SD 23,3), mean adenomectomy specimen weight was 79,9 g (SD 45,9) (p=0,001). TZ estimated volume underestimated adenomectomy specimen weight by 21%. In order to adequate the estimated volume to the specimen weight, we calculated the formula: estimated TZ weight=1,67 x TZ measured volume - 24,768 (p=0,04).ConclusionsWe found significative differences between TRUS measured volumes and real weight of surgical specimen. These differences could be corrected by simple formulas that allow to minimize the observed underestimations. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect PubMed 等数据库收录！ |
|
