Assessment of in vivo calculation with ultrasonography compared to physical sections in vitro: A stereological study of prostate volumes

Acer N., Sofikerim M., Ertekin T., UNUR E., ÇAY M., ÖZTÜRK F.

Anatomical Science International, cilt.86, sa.2, ss.78-85, 2011 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 86 Sayı: 2
  • Basım Tarihi: 2011
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1007/s12565-010-0090-6
  • Dergi Adı: Anatomical Science International
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.78-85
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Physical sectioning, Prostate volume, Real volume, Stereology, Transrectal ultrasound
  • Uşak Üniversitesi Adresli: Hayır

Özet

We compared three methods for the determination of prostate volume: prostate volume measured via transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS); the Cavalieri method for measuring physical sections; and volume by displacement. TRUS volumes were calculated by the prolate ellipsoid volume formula. Five patients underwent TRUS examination of the prostate prior to radical prostatectomy; specimens were measured when freshly excised. Mean prostate volume by fluid displacement, before formalin fixation was 52.8 ± 21.5 cm3, and after formalin fixation 50.4 ± 20.9 cm3. Volumes determined by the Cavalieri principle (point-counting and planimetry) were 47.8 ± 19.3 and 49.1 ± 20.5 cm3; volume measured by TRUS was 42.9 ± 21.9 cm3. Thus TRUS underestimated prostate volume by 21.4%, but excellent agreement was found between actual volume and point counting techniques. We believe that the classic ellipsoid formula is inadequate for determining prostate volume. © 2010 Japanese Association of Anatomists.