Home  |   Archive  |   Online Submission  |   News & Events  |   Subscribe  |   APFA  |   Society  |   Contact Us  |   中文版
Search   
 
Journal

Ahead of print
Authors' Accepted
    Manuscripts
new!
Current Issue
Archive
Acknowledgments
Special Issues
Browse by Category

Manuscript Submission

Online Submission
Online Review
Instruction for Authors
Instruction for Reviewers
English Corner new!

About AJA

About AJA
Editorial Board
Contact Us
News

Resources & Services

Advertisement
Subscription
Email alert
Proceedings
Reprints

Download area

Copyright licence
EndNote style file
Manuscript word template
Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in English)

Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in Chinese)

Proof-reading for the
    authors

AJA Club (in English)
AJA Club (in Chinese)

 
Abstract

Volume 11, Issue 2 (March 2009) 11, 261–265; 10.1038/aja.2008.48

The reliability of ultrasonographic measurements for testicular volume assessment: comparison of three common formulas with true testicular volume

Ming-Li Hsieh, Shih-Tsung Huang, Hsin-Chieh Huang, Yu Chen and Yu-Chao Hsu

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan, China

Correspondence: Dr. Ming-Li Hsieh, Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, No. 5, Fu-Shing Street, Kweishan, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan, China. Fax: +886-3-3285-818 E-mail: h0810@adm.cgmh.com.tw

Received 23 September 2008; Revised 28 October 2008; Accepted 13 November 2008; Published online 19 January 2009

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the correlation of ultrasonographic estimates of testicular volume with true testicular volume and to compare the accuracy and precision of the three most commonly utilized formulas. A total of 15 patients underwent high-resolution ultrasonography (US) analysis for testicular volume before orchiectomy. Testicular volume was calculated using three common formulas: (1) length (L) width (W) height (H) 0.52; (2) the empirical formula of Lambert: L W H 0.71; and (3) L W2 0.52. The actual volume of each removed testis was estimated directly by a water displacement method. Thus, four volume measurements were obtained for each of the 30 testes. The obtained data were analyzed by paired t-test and linear regression analysis. All three US formula measurements significantly underestimated the true testicular volume. The largest mean biases were observed with US formula 1, which underestimated the true volume by 3.3 mL (31%). US formula 2 had a smaller mean difference from the true volume, with an underestimation of only 0.6 mL (6%). Regression analysis showed that formulas 1 and 2 had better R2 values than formula 3. However, all three US formulas displayed a strong linear relationship with the true volume (R2= 0.872-0.977; P < 0.001). Among the commonly used US formulas, the empirical formula of Lambert (L W H 0.71) provided better accuracy than the other two formulas evaluated, and better precision than formula 3. Therefore, the formula of Lambert is the optimal choice in clinical practice.

Keywords: testicular volume, testis, ultrasonography

PDF | PDF | 中文摘要 |

 
Browse:  3698
 
Asian Journal of Andrology CN 31-1795/R ISSN 1008-682X  Copyright © 2023  Shanghai Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences.  All rights reserved.