Comparison of ultrasound imaging in patients undergoing transperineal and transrectal prostate ultrasound

• Published in: Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 1998-12, Vol.52 (6), p.1070-1072
• Main Authors: Terris, Martha K, Hammerer, Peter G, Nickas, Michael E
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biological and medical sciences; Humans; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Perineum; Postoperative Complications - diagnostic imaging; Prostatic Diseases - diagnostic imaging; Rectum; Ultrasonic investigative techniques; Ultrasonography - methods; Urinary system
• ISSN: 0090-4295; 1527-9995
• DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00409-9

Objectives. Prostatic evaluation in men who have undergone prior abdominoperineal resection pose an unusual challenge for the urologist. Neither digital rectal examination nor transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) can be performed. Transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) has been suggested as an alternative means of imaging. This imaging modality was compared directly with the standard TRUS method. Methods. TPUS was performed with a 4-MHz abdominal probe or biplane multiple frequency probe at a frequency of 5 to 7 MHz followed by TRUS at 7 MHz in 50 consecutive men referred for prostate ultrasound and biopsy who had not undergone prior abdominoperineal resection. Dimensions of the prostate and ultrasound findings such as hypoechoic, anechoic, or hyperechoic areas were noted for each sonographic approach. Volume calculation was performed by the prolate spheroid method. Results. There was good TPUS visualization of the prostate in the transverse plane in 48 (96%) of 50 patients and in the sagittal plane in 45 (90%) of 50 patients. Prostate volume calculation by TPUS correlated well with the volume calculated by TRUS ( r = 0.876). Twenty-nine patients (58%) were found to have suspicious hypoechoic lesions by TRUS; none were seen by TPUS. Prostatic calcifications were present in 12 patients and were visualized by both TPUS and TRUS in all 12 patients. Six prostate glands demonstrated cystic lesions on TRUS imaging; three of these cystic lesions were also seen with TPUS imaging. Conclusions. TPUS allows visualization of the prostate with volume determination that is comparable to the volume determination by TRUS. Some intraprostatic findings such as calcifications and cysts can be identified; however, suspicious hypoechoic lesions were not identified by TPUS imaging of the prostate.