This study confirms that to estimate accurately the volume of the prostate using the prolate ellipsoid formula, the current methodology needs to be changed. The largest anteroposterior and transverse diameters may need to be measured in different transverse scan slices and the largest craniocaudal diameter in a sagittal scan away from the midline. If volume estimation is to be repeated then step planimetry is reliable and TRUS using the prolate ellipsoid formula is not.

No abstract

Objective To compare the volumes and dimensions of imetry were 22% greater than those from transrectal planimetry. Although there was a good correlation the prostate gland as measured by transrectal and transurethral ultrasonography (TRUS and TUUS) and (r=0.984) between transurethral planimetry and the volumes derived using the transurethral dimensions to study the prostatic changes that occur in the presence of an urethral instrument.with the prolate ellipsoid formula, the latter produced values 17% and 25% lower by the transurethral and Patients and methods Twenty men (mean age 71 years, range 43-85) with symptoms of prostatic enlargement transrectal routes, respectively. These volume estimates varied widely, indicating that the simple underwent TRUS and the dimensions and volumes of their prostates were obtained by the dimensional addition of a constant to the prolate ellipsoid formula would not correct the volume. Three-dimensional method and by step planimetry. Within 24 h, all the men were examined cystoscopically under sedoanalge-changes of the prostate occurred with TRUS and TUUS; with TUUS, the craniocaudal and anteropos-sia and underwent TUUS. Their prostatic volumes and dimensions were again measured by the dimensional terior diameters were significantly larger (by 7% and 18%, respectively) while the transverse diameter was method and by step planimetry.Step planimetry was carried out using a specially designed indexer firmly smaller by 20%. Conclusion The estimated volumes and dimensions of attached to the examination couch or operating table. All the static images and planimetry slices were video the prostate differed when measured by TRUS and TUUS and three-dimensional changes in the prostate recorded for later computer enhancement and to study the three-dimensional changes occurring in the pros-occurred in the presence of an urethral instrument. Keywords Volume estimate, prostate, reproducibility, tate. The volumes and dimensions obtained by TRUS and TUUS were compared. prostatic ultrasonography, computer-aided diagnostics, three-dimensional changes Results Volumes obtained by transurethral step planvolume by TRUS, step planimetry is reported to be the

No abstract