The reliability of ultrasonographic measurements for testicular volume assessment: comparison of three common formulas with true testicular volume

• Published in: Asian journal of andrology 2009-03, Vol.11 (2), p.261-265
• Main Authors: Hsieh, Ming-Li, Huang, Shih-Tsung, Huang, Hsin-Chieh, Chen, Yu, Hsu, Yu-Chao
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Organ Size; Original; Reproducibility of Results; Testis - anatomy & histology; Testis - diagnostic imaging; Ultrasonography - methods
• ISSN: 1008-682X; 1745-7262
• DOI: 10.1038/aja.2008.48

The aim of this study was to determine the correlation of ultrasonographic estimates of testicular volume with true testicular volume and to compare the accuracy and precision of the three most commonly utilized formulas. A total of 15 patients underwent high-resolution ultrasonography (US) analysis for testicular volume before orchiectomy. Testicular volume was calculated using three common formulas: (1) length (L) x width (W) x height (H) x 0.52; (2) the empirical formula of Lambert: L x W x H x 0.71; and (3) L x W2 x 0.52. The actual volume of each removed testis was estimated directly by a water displacement method. Thus, four volume measurements were obtained for each of the 30 testes. The obtained data were analyzed by paired t-test and linear regression analysis. All three US formula measurements significantly underestimated the true testicular volume. The largest mean biases were observed with US formula 1, which underestimated the true volume by 3.3 mL (31%). US formula 2 had a smaller mean difference from the true volume, with an underestimation of only 0.6 mL (6%). Regression analysis showed that formulas 1 and 2 had better R2 values than formula 3. However, all three US formulas displayed a strong linear relationship with the true volume (R2= 0.872-0.977; P < 0.001). Among the commonly used US formulas, the empirical formula of Lambert (L x W x H x 0.71) provided better accuracy than the other two formulas evaluated, and better precision than formula 3. Therefore, the formula of Lambert is the optimal choice in clinical practice.