COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TRANSRECTAL AND SUPRAPUBIC ULTRASONOGRAPHY IN THE ESTIMATION OF PROSTATE VOLUME: INITIAL EXPERIENCE

Abstract

Background: Prostate volume (PV) is a principal parameter used by clinicians to better manage patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to prostate or prostate cancer. PV can be measured by digital rectal examination, transrectal or suprapubic ultrasonography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and in prostatic specimens after prostatectomy. This study aims at determining the correlation of PV measured by suprapubic ultrasound scan (SPUS) and transrectal ultrasound scan (TRUS).

Materials and Methods: This prospective study involved patients that underwent evaluation for lower urinary tract symptoms. Participants had suprapubic ultrasound scan and transrectal ultrasound scan done by the same radiologist. Data was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Version 22.0. Pearson’s correlation coefficient with the P <0.05 considered as significant was used.

Results: A total of one hundred and seven patients were studied with age range of 24 – 84years and a mean age of 63.82±9.72years. The mean PV of all patients estimated by suprapubic sonography was 59.10±40.00 (cm3)/gram while mean PV measurement estimated by transrectal sonography was 70.60±45.40(cm3)/gram with positive correlation (r = 0.861 p-value = 0.0001).

Conclusion: There is significant positive correlation between the suprapubic measured PV and transrectal measured PV. Therefore, SPUS can be a good substitute for TRUS where the latter cannot be done.

Keywords:

Prostate, Ultrasonography, Pearson coefficient

References

Mc Neal JE: The zonal anatomy of the prostate. Prostate 1981; 2: 35–49

McVary KT. Clinical Evaluation of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Rev Urol. 2003; 5 (suppl 4): S3-S11

Styles RA, Neal DE, Powell PH. Reproducibility of measurement of prostatic volume by ultrasound. Comparison of transrectal and transabdominal methods. Eur Urol. 1988; 14:266–269.

Garvey B, Turkbey B, Truong H, Bernardo M, Periaswamy S, Choyke PL. Clinical value of prostate segmentation and volume determination on MRI in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Diagn Interv Radiol 2014; 20:229e33.

Tahir A, Ahidjo A. Variation of prostatic volume with advancing age among adult Nigerians. Arch Nig Med. 2004; 1: 12- 14. PubMed | Google Scholar

Hendrikx AJ, Doesburg WH, Reintjes AG, van Helvoort-van Dommelen CA, Hofmans PA, Debruyne FM. Determination of prostatic volume by ultrasonography. A useful procedure in patients with prostatism? Urology. 1989; 33(4):336 – 339. Doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(89)90282-3.

Rathaus V, Richter S, Nissenkorn I, Goldberg E. Transperineal ultrasound examination in the evaluation of prostatic size. Clin Radiol. 1991; 44:383-385. Doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(05)80654-3.

Vilman P, Hancke S, Strange-Vognsen HH, Nielsen K, Sorensen SM. The reliability of transabdominal ultrasound in the determination of prostatic volume. An autopsy study. Scand J Urol Neprol. 1987; 21:5-7.

Jones DR, Roberts EE, Griffiths GJ, Parkinson MC, Evans KT, Peeling WB. Assessment of volume measurement of the prostate using per-rectal ultrasonography Br J Urol 1989; 64:493e5.

Stravodimos KG, Petrolekas A, Kapetanakis T, Vourekas S, Koritsiadis G, et al. TRUS versus transabdominal ultrasound as a predictor of enucleated adenoma weight in patients with BPH: a tool for standard preoperative work-up? Int Urol Nephrol. 2009; 41(4): 767-771. Doi: 10.1007/s11255-009-9554-9.

Styles RA, Neal DE, Powell PH. Reproducibility of measurement of prostatic volume by ultrasound. Comparison of transrectal and transabdominal methods. Eur Urol. 1988;14(4):266-269. Doi: 10.1159/000472957.

Kim SH, Kim SH. Correlations between the various methods of estimating prostate volume: transabdominal, transrectal, and three-dimensional US. Korean J Radiol. 2008; 9(2): 134-139. Doi: 10.3348/kjr.2008.9.2.134.

Aarnink RG, de la Rosette JJ, Debruyne FM, Wijkstra H. Formula-derived prostate volume determination. Eur Urol 1996; 29(4):399-402. Doi:10.1159/000473786.

Feng KK, Chiang I.N, Huang CY, Pu YS. Analysis of transrectal and suprapubic ultrasonography for prostate size evaluation Urological Science 2017; 28(3): 166-168. Doi: 10.1016/j.urols.2016.10.004.

Babaei Jandaghi A, Shakiba M, Nasseh HR, Korouji Y, Esmaeili S, Khadem Maboudi AA, Khorshidi A. Application of Bland-Altman.Method in Comparing Transrectal and Transabdominal Ultrasonography for Estimating Prostate Volume. Iran J Med Sci. 2015;40(1):34-39.

Doebler RW. Transverse prostate measurement obtained using transabdominal ultrasound: possible role in transurethral needle ablation of the prostate. Urology. 2000; 55(4): 564-567. Doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00556-7.

Ozden E, Gogus C, Kilic O, Yaman O, Ozdiler E. Analysis of suprapubic and transrectal measurements in assessment of prostate dimensions and volume: is transrectal ultrasonography really necessary for prostate measurements? Urol J. 2009; 6(3): 208-213.

Huang Foen Chung JW, de Vries SH, Raaijmakers R, Postma R, Bosch JL, van Mastrigt R, Prostate Volume Ultrasonography: The Influence of Transabdominal versus Transrectal Approach, Device Type and Operator, Eur Urol. 2004; 46(3):352-356. 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.05.002.

Yuen JS, Ngiap JT, Cheng CW, Foo KT. Effects of bladder volume on transabdominal ultrasound measurements of intravesical prostatic protrusion and volume. Int J Urol. 2002; 9(4): 225-229. Doi: 10.1046/j.1442-2042.2002.00453.x.