Publications

Detailed Information

Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography and MRI with the actual prostate volume measured after radical prostatectomy

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorJeong, Chang Wook-
dc.contributor.authorPark, Hyoung Keun-
dc.contributor.authorHong, Sung Kyu-
dc.contributor.authorByun, Seok-Soo-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Hak Jong-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Sang Eun-
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-28T23:14:22Z-
dc.date.available2010-06-28T23:14:22Z-
dc.date.issued2008-09-02-
dc.identifier.citationUrol Int. 2008;81(2):179-185en
dc.identifier.issn1423-0399 (Electronic)-
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=18758216-
dc.identifier.urihttp://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ArtikelNr=000144057&Ausgabe=239324&ProduktNr=224282&filename=000144057.pdf-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10371/67952-
dc.description.abstractAIM: To compare the prostate volume, as measured by transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and by MRI, with that of the actual prostate volume measured after a radical prostatectomy (RRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study included 21 patients who had undergone RRP. TRUS prostate volumes were calculated using the prolate ellipsoid volume formula, with the anteroposterior diameter measured from axial (TRUS-V1) and mid-sagittal images (TRUS-V2). Two prolate ellipsoid volumes (MRI-EV1 and MRI-EV2) were calculated from the MRI using the same method, and planimetric volume (MRI-PV). The actual prostate volume (Actual-V) was measured in a measuring jug within 1 h after RRP. RESULTS: Mean of Actual-V was 40.3ml (21.0-82.0). In paired sample tests, the correlation coefficients (R) for all methods were over 0.8. In a Student's t test (paired), MRI-PV (p = 0.620), MRI-EV2 (p = 0.703) and TRUS-V1 (p = 0.099) showed no significant differences compared to the Actual-V. The linear regression models of these three methods were y = 1.025x - 0.268, y = 0.946x + 2.979 and y = 1.046x + 0.381, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Between two TRUS volumes, TRUS-V1 was shown to be superior to TRUS-V2. In MRI, MRI-EV2 was more accurate than MRI-EV1. However, MRI-PV was the most accurate method. TRUS-V1 and MRI-EV2 could be used instead of MRI-PV in general clinical settings.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherKargeren
dc.subjectAgeden
dc.subjectHumansen
dc.subjectMaleen
dc.subjectMiddle Ageden
dc.subjectOrgan Sizeen
dc.subjectProspective Studiesen
dc.subjectProstate/*anatomy & histology/ultrasonographyen
dc.subjectProstatic Neoplasms/*pathology/*surgery/ultrasonographyen
dc.subjectMagnetic Resonance Imaging-
dc.subjectProstatectomy-
dc.subjectUltrasonography-
dc.titleComparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography and MRI with the actual prostate volume measured after radical prostatectomyen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor정창욱-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor박형근-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor홍성규-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor변석수-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor이학종-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor이상은-
dc.identifier.doi10.1159/000144057-
Appears in Collections:
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Altmetrics

Item View & Download Count

  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Share