OBJECTIVE: To establish whether there is a consensus regarding the significance of testicular microlithiasis and a strategy for managing patients with this condition, amongst ultrasound practitioners in the UK. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was distributed to 1482 members of the British Medical Ultrasound Society (BMUS), requesting information from ultrasound practitioners involved in scrotal ultrasound about their interpretation of the risk associated with testicular microlithiasis and their departmental or personal recommendations for managing patients with this condition. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 221 BMUS members. Analysis demonstrated a wide variation in the significance attributed to the discovery of testicular microlithiasis and the risk of subsequent development of testicular germ cell tumours. There was also great variation in strategies for management of patients with testicular microlithiasis, including the need for surveillance ultrasound, amongst ultrasound practitioners regardless of their job description. CONCLUSION: Lack of consensus shown by this study highlights significant differences across the UK in managing patients with testicular microlithiasis and validates the importance of guidance currently being formulated by the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: We believe that this is the first survey to be conducted amongst imaging specialists in the UK regarding testicular microlithiasis and demonstrates that there is currently no uniform practice in managing patients with this condition.
OBJECTIVE: To establish whether there is a consensus regarding the significance of testicular microlithiasis and a strategy for managing patients with this condition, amongst ultrasound practitioners in the UK. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was distributed to 1482 members of the British Medical Ultrasound Society (BMUS), requesting information from ultrasound practitioners involved in scrotal ultrasound about their interpretation of the risk associated with testicular microlithiasis and their departmental or personal recommendations for managing patients with this condition. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 221 BMUS members. Analysis demonstrated a wide variation in the significance attributed to the discovery of testicular microlithiasis and the risk of subsequent development of testicular germ cell tumours. There was also great variation in strategies for management of patients with testicular microlithiasis, including the need for surveillance ultrasound, amongst ultrasound practitioners regardless of their job description. CONCLUSION: Lack of consensus shown by this study highlights significant differences across the UK in managing patients with testicular microlithiasis and validates the importance of guidance currently being formulated by the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: We believe that this is the first survey to be conducted amongst imaging specialists in the UK regarding testicular microlithiasis and demonstrates that there is currently no uniform practice in managing patients with this condition.
Authors: H von der Maase; M Rørth; S Walbom-Jørgensen; B L Sørensen; I S Christophersen; T Hald; G K Jacobsen; J G Berthelsen; N E Skakkebaek Journal: Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) Date: 1986-11-29
Authors: Sophie D Fosså; Jinbo Chen; Sara J Schonfeld; Katherine A McGlynn; Mary L McMaster; Mitchell H Gail; Lois B Travis Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-07-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: P D Furness; D A Husmann; J W Brock; G F Steinhardt; T P Bukowski; A L Freedman; R I Silver; E Y Cheng Journal: J Urol Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 7.450