This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 30/6/685    most recent Author Manuscript (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Lin, C.-C. Articles by Chen, K.-K. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lin, C.-C. Articles by Chen, K.-K.

Measurement of Testicular Volume in Smaller Testes: How Accurate Is the Conventional Orchidometer?

From the Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and the Department of Urology, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.

Correspondence to: Dr William J. S. Huang, Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Section 2, Shih Pai Road, Taipei, Taiwan, 11217, Taiwan, Republic of China (e-mail: jshuang{at}vghtpe.gov.tw).

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different methods, including the Seager orchidometer (SO) and ultrasonography (US), for assessing testicular volume of smaller testes (testes volume less than 18 mL). Moreover, the equations used for the calculations—the Hansen formula (length [L] x width [W]² x 0.52, equation A), the prolate ellipsoid formula (L x W x height [H] x 0.52, equation B), and the Lambert equation (L x W x H x 0.71, equation C)—were also examined and compared with the gold standard testicular volume obtained by water displacement (Archimedes principle). In this study, 30 testes from 15 men, mean age 75.3 (±8.3) years, were included. They all had advanced prostate cancer and were admitted for orchiectomy. Before the procedure, all the testes were assessed using SO and US. The dimensions were then input into each equation to obtain the volume estimates. The testicular volume by water displacement was 8.1 ± 3.5 mL. Correlation coefficients (R²) of the 2 different methods (SO, US) to the gold standard were 0.70 and 0.85, respectively. The calculated testicular volumes were 9.2 ± 3.9 mL (measured by SO, equation A), 11.9 ± 5.2 mL (measured by SO, equation C), 7.3 ± 4.2 mL (measured by US, equation A), 6.5 ± 3.3 mL (measured by US, equation B) and 8.9 ± 4.5 mL (measured by US, equation C). Only the mean size measured by US and volume calculated with the Hansen equation (equation A) and the mean size measured by US and volume calculated with the Lambert equation (equation C) showed no significant differences when compared with the volumes estimated by water displacement (mean difference 0.81 mL, P = .053, and 0.81 mL, P = .056, respectively). Based on our measurements, we categorized testicular volume by different cutoff values (7.0 mL, 7.5 mL, 8.0 mL, and 8.5 mL) to calculate a new constant for use in the Hansen equation. The new constant was 0.59. We then reexamined the equations using the new 0.59 constant, and found that the equation Volume (V) = L x W² x 0.59 was the best for describing testicular volume among our subjects (difference between the new equation and the gold standard of water displacement = 0.19 mL, P = .726). We also found that US was more precise in measuring testicular dimensions. We propose a new formula, V = L x W² x 0.59, to assess the volumes of smaller testes.

     Key words: Ultrasonography, equation, orchidometry