Assessment of in vivo calculation with ultrasonography compared to physical sections in vitro: a stereological study of prostate volumes

• Published in: Anatomical science international Vol. 86; no. 2; pp. 78 - 85
• Main Authors: Acer, Niyazi, Sofikerim, Mustafa, Ertekin, Tolga, Unur, Erdoğan, Çay, Mahmut, Öztürk, Figen
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Japan Springer Japan 01-06-2011; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Aged; Algorithms; Anatomy; Animal Anatomy; Animal Physiology; Cell Biology; Comparative analysis; Histology; Human Physiology; Humans; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Morphology; Neurosciences; Organ Size; Original Article; Prostate; Prostate - anatomy & histology; Prostate - diagnostic imaging; Ultrasonic imaging; Ultrasonography; Transrectal ultrasound; Stereology; Physical sectioning; Prostate volume; Real volume
• ISSN: 1447-6959; 1447-073X
• DOI: 10.1007/s12565-010-0090-6

We compared three methods for the determination of prostate volume: prostate volume measured via transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS); the Cavalieri method for measuring physical sections; and volume by displacement. TRUS volumes were calculated by the prolate ellipsoid volume formula. Five patients underwent TRUS examination of the prostate prior to radical prostatectomy; specimens were measured when freshly excised. Mean prostate volume by fluid displacement, before formalin fixation was 52.8 ± 21.5 cm
3
, and after formalin fixation 50.4 ± 20.9 cm
3
. Volumes determined by the Cavalieri principle (point-counting and planimetry) were 47.8 ± 19.3 and 49.1 ± 20.5 cm
3
; volume measured by TRUS was 42.9 ± 21.9 cm
3
. Thus TRUS underestimated prostate volume by 21.4%, but excellent agreement was found between actual volume and point counting techniques. We believe that the classic ellipsoid formula is inadequate for determining prostate volume.