Correlation of prostate volume by ultrasound and weight of the pathological study after prostatectomy in a tertiary clinic in Cali

Correlation of prostate volume by ultrasound and weight of the pathological study after prostatectomy in a tertiary clinic in Cali

Juan D. Iregui-Parra 1, Lina M. Henao-Cardona 2, María I. Saavedra-Bustamante 3, Claudia M. Arias-Salazar 4, Leydi J. Moreno-Rodríguez 3, Manuela Castaño-Orozco 3, Hoover O. León- Giraldo 4

1 Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Sociedad Colombiana de Urología; Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Libre; Colombian Urology Research Group; Departamento de Epidemiología, Universidad Libre; Cali, Colombia; 2 Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Asociación Colombiana de Trasplante de órganos, Universidad Libre, Cali, Colombia; 3 Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Libre, Cali, Colombia; 4 Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Libre; Colombian Urology Research Group; Departamento de Epidemiología, Universidad Libre; Cali, Colombia

*Correspondence: Claudia M. Arias-Salazar. Email: claudiam-ariass@unilibre.edu.co

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the correlation between prostate volume obtained by transabdominal ultrasound and the pathological specimen after open prostatectomy.

Method: A retrospective, observational, analytical, and correlation study was carried out with 417 patients. Pearson’s correlation coefficient, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Mann-Whitney U test were used as appropriate. To obtain the overestimation, the difference between the size obtained by ultrasound and the prostate weight measured by pathology was calculated. The result was classified into tolerable (< 10%) and clinically significant (≥ 10%) underestimation and overestimation. A logistic regression model was then generated to evaluate variables associated with overestimation of prostate volume.

Results: The average age of patients was 68.4; the predominant diagnosis was stromal gland hyperplasia (96.4%), with chronic prostatitis in 68.3%. The median prostate volume obtained by ultrasound was 120 cc, while the weight of the surgical specimen was 78 g. A weak correlation was observed between PSA and prostate weight (r = 0.12; p = 0.0121), but a strong correlation between ultrasound volume and pathological specimen (r = 0.74; p < 0.05). Ultrasound overestimated prostate size in 92.5%. The adjusted model showed that PSA had a statistically significant association with clinical overestimation (OR: 0.3; 95% CI 0.27–0.33; p = 0.020); the strong correlation between ultrasound volume and pathological specimen was r = 0.74 (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Although transabdominal ultrasound correlates with prostate size, its tendency to overestimate volume suggests that it should not be the only criterion for selecting the surgical technique.

Keywords: Prostate; Prostatectomy; Prostatic hyperplasia

Contents

English version not available. Please check the Spanish version.

⇄ Versión en Español
DOI not available
Add to Mendeley

Text only available in Spanish.

    PERMANYER

    Mallorca, 310
    08037 Barcelona (España)

    Arquímedes, 190 – Colonia Polanco
    Delegación Miguel Hidalgo
    11560 Ciudad de México (México)

    RECURRING LINKS
    CLOCKSS is a dak archive that ensures the long-term survival of web-based scholary publications, governed by and for its stakeholders.

    This journal adheres to the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics

    Descargar PDF
    English versión
    DOI not available

    Editorial times

    The editorial process consists of 6 stages:

    1. Reception of the manuscript (indeterminate, depending on whether the author meets the requirements): its objective is to verify that the manuscript complies with the specifications of these instructions for authors and that the submitted documentation is complete.

    2. Initial editorial review (maximum 5 business days): its objective is to corroborate the relevance, timeliness, originality, and scientific contribution of the manuscript, as well as the methodological and statistical soundness of the study. At this time, it will be submitted to an electronic plagiarism detection system. Derived from this, a rejected opinion may be obtained, or it will be sent for review by peer researchers.

    3. Review by peer researchers (maximum 30 business days): the opinion of at least two experts in the area in question will be obtained, who will evaluate the technical and methodological aspects of the investigation.

    4. Editorial review (maximum 7 business days): its objective is to make a decision based on the opinion of peer reviewers. The opinion can be rejected, major changes, minor changes or accepted. In the case of major or minor changes, it will be submitted again for evaluation by the initial peer reviewers.

    5. Final edition (6 weeks): its objective is the technical and linguistic edition (and translation), layout of galleys, DOI assignment, and correction by the author.

    6. Advanced publication: All manuscripts will be published ahead of print on the journal’s website as soon as they complete the editing process, until they are incorporated into a final issue of the journal.