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.author | Jeong, Chang Wook | - |
dc.contributor.author | Park, Hyoung Keun | - |
dc.contributor.author | Hong, Sung Kyu | - |
dc.contributor.author | Byun, Seok-Soo | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, Hak Jong | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, Sang Eun | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-06-28T23:14:22Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2010-06-28T23:14:22Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2008-09-02 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Urol Int. 2008;81(2):179-185 | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 1423-0399 (Electronic) | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=18758216 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ArtikelNr=000144057&Ausgabe=239324&ProduktNr=224282&filename=000144057.pdf | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10371/67952 | - |
dc.description.abstract | AIM: 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.iso | en | en |
dc.publisher | Karger | en |
dc.subject | Aged | en |
dc.subject | Humans | en |
dc.subject | Male | en |
dc.subject | Middle Aged | en |
dc.subject | Organ Size | en |
dc.subject | Prospective Studies | en |
dc.subject | Prostate/*anatomy & histology/ultrasonography | en |
dc.subject | Prostatic Neoplasms/*pathology/*surgery/ultrasonography | en |
dc.subject | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | - |
dc.subject | Prostatectomy | - |
dc.subject | Ultrasonography | - |
dc.title | Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography and MRI with the actual prostate volume measured after radical prostatectomy | en |
dc.type | Article | en |
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor | 정창욱 | - |
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor | 박형근 | - |
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor | 홍성규 | - |
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor | 변석수 | - |
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor | 이학종 | - |
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor | 이상은 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1159/000144057 | - |
- Appears in Collections:
- Files in This Item:
- There are no files associated with this item.
Item View & Download Count
Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.