Journal of Andrology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Published-Ahead-of-Print July 3, 2009, DOI:10.2164/jandrol.108.006460

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

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

Chih-Chieh Lin , William J.S. Huang *, and Kuang-Kuo Chen

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jshuang{at}vghtpe.gov.tw.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different methods, including Seager's orchidometer (SO) and ultrasonography (US), for assessing testicular volume of smaller testes. Moreover, the equations used for the calculations, i.e. Hansen's formula (L x W2 x 0.52, equation A), the prolate ellipsoid formula (L x W x H x 0.52, equation B), and Lambert's 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), 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 two 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), respectively. Only the mean size measured by US and volume calculated with Hansen equation) and the mean size measured by US and volume calculated with Lambert equation) showed no significant difference (mean difference 0.81 mL, P= 0.053 and 0.81 mL, P= 0.056, respectively). Based on our measurements, we categorized testicular volume by different cut-off values (7.0 mL, 7.5 mL, 8.0 mL, and 8.5 mL) to calculate a new constant for use in the Hansen's equation. The new constant was 0.59. We then reexamined the equations using the new 0.59 constant, and found the equation V = L x W2 x 0.59 was the best for describing the testicular volume among our subjects (difference 0.19 mL, P= 0.726). We also found that US was more precise in measuring testicular dimensions. We proposed a new formula V = L x W2 x 0.59 to assess the volumes of smaller testes.


Key words: Testis • orchidometer • testicular volume • ultrasonography




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J AndrolHome page
F. Martinez-Pastor
Use of Misleading Statistics in Method Comparison Analyses
J Androl, July 1, 2010; 31(4): 323 - 323.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2009 by The American Society of Andrology.