Cargando…
Correlations between the Various Methods of Estimating Prostate Volume: Transabdominal, Transrectal, and Three-Dimensional US
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the correlations between prostate volumes estimated by transabdominal, transrectal, and three-dimensional US and the factors affecting the differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prostate volumes of 94 consecutive patients were measured by both transabdominal and transrectal U...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Radiological Society
2008
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627229/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18385560 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2008.9.2.134 |
_version_ | 1782163520258834432 |
---|---|
author | Kim, Sun Ho Kim, Seung Hyup |
author_facet | Kim, Sun Ho Kim, Seung Hyup |
author_sort | Kim, Sun Ho |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the correlations between prostate volumes estimated by transabdominal, transrectal, and three-dimensional US and the factors affecting the differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prostate volumes of 94 consecutive patients were measured by both transabdominal and transrectal US. Next, the prostate volumes of 58 other patients was measured by both transrectal and three-dimensional US. We evaluated the degree of correlation and mean difference in each comparison. We also analyzed possible factors affecting the differences, such as the experiences of examiners in transrectal US, bladder volume, and prostate volume. RESULTS: In the comparison of transabdominal and transrectal US methods, the mean difference was 8.4 ± 10.5 mL and correlation coefficient (r) was 0.775 (p < 0.01). The experienced examiner for the transrectal US method had the highest correlation (r = 0.967) and the significantly smallest difference (5.4 ± 3.9 mL) compared to the other examiners (the beginner and the trained; p < 0.05). Prostate volume measured by transrectal US showed a weak correlation with the difference (r = 0.360, p < 0.05). Bladder volume did not show significant correlation with the difference (r = -0.043, p > 0.05). The comparison between the transrectal and three-dimensional US methods revealed a mean difference of 3.7 ± 3.4 mL and the correlation coefficient was 0.924 for the experienced examiner. Furthermore, no significant difference existed between examiners (p > 0.05). Prostate volume measured by transrectal US showed a positive correlation with the difference for the beginner only (r = 0.405, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In the prostate volume estimation by US, experience in transrectal US is important in the correlation with transabdominal US, but not with three-dimensional US. Also, less experienced examiners' assessment of the prostate volume can be affected by prostate volume itself. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2627229 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2008 |
publisher | The Korean Radiological Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-26272292009-02-17 Correlations between the Various Methods of Estimating Prostate Volume: Transabdominal, Transrectal, and Three-Dimensional US Kim, Sun Ho Kim, Seung Hyup Korean J Radiol Original Article OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the correlations between prostate volumes estimated by transabdominal, transrectal, and three-dimensional US and the factors affecting the differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prostate volumes of 94 consecutive patients were measured by both transabdominal and transrectal US. Next, the prostate volumes of 58 other patients was measured by both transrectal and three-dimensional US. We evaluated the degree of correlation and mean difference in each comparison. We also analyzed possible factors affecting the differences, such as the experiences of examiners in transrectal US, bladder volume, and prostate volume. RESULTS: In the comparison of transabdominal and transrectal US methods, the mean difference was 8.4 ± 10.5 mL and correlation coefficient (r) was 0.775 (p < 0.01). The experienced examiner for the transrectal US method had the highest correlation (r = 0.967) and the significantly smallest difference (5.4 ± 3.9 mL) compared to the other examiners (the beginner and the trained; p < 0.05). Prostate volume measured by transrectal US showed a weak correlation with the difference (r = 0.360, p < 0.05). Bladder volume did not show significant correlation with the difference (r = -0.043, p > 0.05). The comparison between the transrectal and three-dimensional US methods revealed a mean difference of 3.7 ± 3.4 mL and the correlation coefficient was 0.924 for the experienced examiner. Furthermore, no significant difference existed between examiners (p > 0.05). Prostate volume measured by transrectal US showed a positive correlation with the difference for the beginner only (r = 0.405, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In the prostate volume estimation by US, experience in transrectal US is important in the correlation with transabdominal US, but not with three-dimensional US. Also, less experienced examiners' assessment of the prostate volume can be affected by prostate volume itself. The Korean Radiological Society 2008 2008-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC2627229/ /pubmed/18385560 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2008.9.2.134 Text en Copyright © 2008 The Korean Radiological Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Kim, Sun Ho Kim, Seung Hyup Correlations between the Various Methods of Estimating Prostate Volume: Transabdominal, Transrectal, and Three-Dimensional US |
title | Correlations between the Various Methods of Estimating Prostate Volume: Transabdominal, Transrectal, and Three-Dimensional US |
title_full | Correlations between the Various Methods of Estimating Prostate Volume: Transabdominal, Transrectal, and Three-Dimensional US |
title_fullStr | Correlations between the Various Methods of Estimating Prostate Volume: Transabdominal, Transrectal, and Three-Dimensional US |
title_full_unstemmed | Correlations between the Various Methods of Estimating Prostate Volume: Transabdominal, Transrectal, and Three-Dimensional US |
title_short | Correlations between the Various Methods of Estimating Prostate Volume: Transabdominal, Transrectal, and Three-Dimensional US |
title_sort | correlations between the various methods of estimating prostate volume: transabdominal, transrectal, and three-dimensional us |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627229/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18385560 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2008.9.2.134 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kimsunho correlationsbetweenthevariousmethodsofestimatingprostatevolumetransabdominaltransrectalandthreedimensionalus AT kimseunghyup correlationsbetweenthevariousmethodsofestimatingprostatevolumetransabdominaltransrectalandthreedimensionalus |