OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether preoperative transrecta ultrasound (TRUS) mesaurements of the transition zone (TZ) and total prostate volumen predict real prostatic weight. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We compare estimated TRUS volumes with surgical specimen weight, in surgically treated patients with localized prostate cancer (group A, n = 33) or benign prostatic hyperplasia (group B, n = 37). The volume was calculated by the ellipsoid formula. Both measurements were compared with surgical specimen weight, assuming 1 as specific prostate weight. RESULTS: Group A: mean prostate measured volume was 38.6 cc. (SD 22.7), mean RP specimen weight was 54,2 g (SD 27.2) (p = 0.001). Total estimated prostate volume underestimated prostatectomy specimen weight by 29%. In order to adequate the estimated volume to the specimen weight, we calculated the formula: estimated prostate weight = 0.95 x prostatic measured volume + 17,657 (p = 0.005). Group B: mean TZ measured volume was 62.8 cc. (SD 23.3), mean adenomectomy specimen weight was 79.9 g (SD 45.9) (p = 0.001). TZ estimated volume underestimated adenomectomy specimen weight by 21%. In order to adequate the estimated volume to the specimen weight, we calculated the formula: estimated TZ weight = 1.67 x TZ measured volume - 24,768 (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We found significative differences between TRUS measured volumes and real weight of surgical specimen. These differences could be corrected by simple formulas that allow to minimize the observed underestimations.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether preoperative transrecta ultrasound (TRUS) mesaurements of the transition zone (TZ) and total prostate volumen predict real prostatic weight. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We compare estimated TRUS volumes with surgical specimen weight, in surgically treated patients with localized prostate cancer (group A, n = 33) or benign prostatic hyperplasia (group B, n = 37). The volume was calculated by the ellipsoid formula. Both measurements were compared with surgical specimen weight, assuming 1 as specific prostate weight. RESULTS: Group A: mean prostate measured volume was 38.6 cc. (SD 22.7), mean RP specimen weight was 54,2 g (SD 27.2) (p = 0.001). Total estimated prostate volume underestimated prostatectomy specimen weight by 29%. In order to adequate the estimated volume to the specimen weight, we calculated the formula: estimated prostate weight = 0.95 x prostatic measured volume + 17,657 (p = 0.005). Group B: mean TZ measured volume was 62.8 cc. (SD 23.3), mean adenomectomy specimen weight was 79.9 g (SD 45.9) (p = 0.001). TZ estimated volume underestimated adenomectomy specimen weight by 21%. In order to adequate the estimated volume to the specimen weight, we calculated the formula: estimated TZ weight = 1.67 x TZ measured volume - 24,768 (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We found significative differences between TRUS measured volumes and real weight of surgical specimen. These differences could be corrected by simple formulas that allow to minimize the observed underestimations.
Authors: Tomasz Szopinski; Tomasz Golabek; Andrzej Borówka; Piotr Chłosta Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 1.195