Prostate volume estimation using the ellipsoid formula consistently underestimates actual gland size
Prostate volume estimation using the ellipsoid formula consistently underestimates actual gland size
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.083
复制
发表时间：
2008-02-01
影响因子：
6.6
通讯作者：
Ahlering, Thomas E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rodriguez, Esequiel, Jr.;Skarecky, Douglas;Ahlering, Thomas E.
目的：以往通过经直肠超声估计前列腺体积低估了实际前列腺重量。我们量化并确定是否可以确定趋势预测或理解underestimation.Materials和方法：特征经直肠超声体积，病理前列腺重量和尺寸在181例患者被输入到一个电子表格。病理和经直肠超声体积使用标准椭圆体公式估计，宽度X高度X长度X pi/6。在87的181例经直肠超声尺寸进行了比较，病理dimensions.Results：使用病理确定的尺寸的椭圆体公式准确地预测重量（+/- 10%），在26.5%的情况下，与13.3%的超声。在55%的病例中，经直肠超声低估了30%以上，高估（大于10%）仅为6.4%。小腺体重量与大腺体重量相比，不能预测低估。对于前列腺重量小于30，30 - 60和大于60克，经直肠超声低估大于20%的病例分别为22.2%，24.7%和25.7%。经直肠超声测量和病理尺寸的配对分析显示，经直肠超声长度是准确的（4.4 vs 4.3 cm），并与前列腺重量有良好的相关性。身高被低估（3.2对3.7厘米），但它与体重相关。宽度不准确（4.8 vs 5.2 cm），与体重相关性较差。年龄、前列腺特异性抗原、分期、Gleason评分、美国泌尿外科协会症状评分和体重指数不能预测低估。杜松子酒中每单位前列腺重量排出的水体积（cc）显示相关性为0.997。结论：与前列腺重量体积估计不一致的主要潜在因素似乎是椭圆体公式，因为病理确定的尺寸仍然有75%的误差。在55%的患者中，经直肠超声相关性在80%的时间内低估了超过30%的体重，这与腺体大小无关。与以前的报道相反，经直肠超声宽度而不是长度是最不可靠的因素。
Purpose: Historically estimating prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound underestimates actual prostate weight. We quantified and determined whether trends could be identified to predict or understand the underestimation.Materials and Methods: The characteristics transrectal ultrasound volume, pathological prostate weight and dimensions in 181 patients were entered into an electronic spread sheet. Pathological and transrectal ultrasound volume was estimated using the standard ellipsoid formula, width X height X length X pi/6. In 87 of the 181 cases transrectal ultrasound dimensions were compared to pathological dimensions.Results: Using pathologically determined dimensions the ellipsoid formula accurately (+/- 10%) predicted weight in 26.5% of the cases vs 13.3% by ultrasound. Transrectal ultrasound underestimated it by greater than 30% in 55% of cases and overestimated (greater than 10%) it in only 6.4%. Small vs large gland weight did not predict less underestimation. For prostate weight less than 30, 30 to 60 and more than 60 gm transrectal ultrasound underestimated by greater than 20% in 22.2%, 24.7% and 25.7% of cases, respectively. Paired analysis of transrectal ultrasound measurements and pathological dimensions revealed that transrectal ultrasound length was accurate (4.4 vs 4.3 cm) and had a good correlation with prostate weight. Height was underestimated (3.2 vs 3.7 cm) but it correlated with weight. Width was inaccurate (4.8 vs 5.2 cm) and it correlated poorly with weight. Age, prostate specific antigen, stage, Gleason score, American Urological Association symptom score and body mass index were not predictive of the underestimation. Displaced water volume in cc per prostate weight in gin showed a correlation of 0.997.Conclusions: The primary underlying factor for inconsistency with volume estimation of prostate weight appears to be the ellipsoid formula since pathologically determined dimensions still had a 75% error. Independent of gland size the transrectal ultrasound correlation underestimated weight 80% of the time by greater than 30% in 55% of patients. Contrary to previous reports, transrectal ultrasound width and not length is the least reliable factor.