Differential diagnosis of focal epididymal lesions with gray scale sonographic, color Doppler sonographic, and clinical features.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether focal epididymal lesions can be differentiated on gray scale sonographic, color Doppler sonographic, and clinical features. METHODS: This was a retrospectiveanalysis of 60 focal epididymal lesions in 57 patients. Focal epididymal lesions were classified into 3 groups: nonspecific epididymitis (n = 43), tuberculous epididymitis (n = 10), and benign epididymal masses (n = 7). The following gray scale sonographic, color Doppler sonographic, and clinical features were analyzed: size, location, echogenicity, and heterogeneity of the lesion; hypoechoic or hyperechoic rim presence; hydrocele presence; degree of blood flow in the lesion; patient's age; duration of symptoms; and scrotal tenderness. RESULTS: Lesions were larger in patients with tuberculous epididymitis than in those with either nonspecific epididymitis (P = .007) or benign epididymal masses (P = .0017). The hypoechoic or hyperechoic rim of the lesion was more common in patients with benign epididymal masses than in those with nonspecific epididymitis (P = .002). The degree of blood flow in the lesion was greater in patients with nonspecific epididymitis than in those with either tuberculous epididymitis (P = .0019) or benign epididymal masses (P < .001). The duration of symptoms was shorter in patients with nonspecific epididymitis than in those with either tuberculous epididymitis (P < .001) or benign epididymal masses (P = .0092). The frequency of scrotal tenderness was higher in patients with nonspecific epididymitis than in those with either tuberculous epididymitis (P < .001) or benign epididymal masses (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Gray scale sonographic, color Doppler sonographic, and some clinical features may be helpful for differential diagnosis of focal epididymal lesions.