Comparative assessment of pediatric testicular volume: Orchidometer versus ultrasound

David A. Diamond, Harriet J. Paltiel, James DiCanzio, David Zurakowski, Stuart B. Bauer, Anthony Atala, Patti L Ephraim, Rosemary Grant, Alan B. Retik

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Testicular volume measurements obtained with the Prader and Rochester orchidometers were compared to those obtained using scrotal ultrasound. The ability of each orchidometer versus ultrasound in detecting volume differential between 2 testes and the accuracy of orchidometer measurement by a less experienced examiner to that of a urologist were compared. Materials and Methods: A total of 65 males were examined by the attending urologist and urology nurse using the Prader and Rochester orchidometers, and scrotal ultrasound was subsequently performed by an attending radiologist. Statistical analysis of the results was performed to determine the correlation of orchidometer measurements between examiners, as well as with ultrasound, and sensitivity and specificity of orchidometer and ultrasound in detecting defined volume differentials between testes of 10%, 15%, 20% and 25%. Results: There was a strong linear relationship between testicular volume measurements using either orchidometer and ultrasound. To detect a defined volume differential as determined by ultrasound orchidometer sensitivity was weak, whereas orchidometer specificity was better. There was a strong correlation between orchidometer measurements of the urology nurse and attending urologist. Conclusions: Although the orchidometer remains valuable in assessing size of the individual testis, it is too insensitive to volume differentials relative to ultrasound to be used routinely to determine growth impairment. For this reason observation of an adolescent with varicocele should include an annual ultrasound assessment of testicular volume.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1111-1114
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume164
Issue number3 II
StatePublished - Sep 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Testis
Urology
Pediatrics
Nurses
Varicocele
Observation
Sensitivity and Specificity
Growth
Urologists
Radiologists

Keywords

  • Pediatrics
  • Testis
  • Ultrasonography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Diamond, D. A., Paltiel, H. J., DiCanzio, J., Zurakowski, D., Bauer, S. B., Atala, A., ... Retik, A. B. (2000). Comparative assessment of pediatric testicular volume: Orchidometer versus ultrasound. Journal of Urology, 164(3 II), 1111-1114.

Comparative assessment of pediatric testicular volume : Orchidometer versus ultrasound. / Diamond, David A.; Paltiel, Harriet J.; DiCanzio, James; Zurakowski, David; Bauer, Stuart B.; Atala, Anthony; Ephraim, Patti L; Grant, Rosemary; Retik, Alan B.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 164, No. 3 II, 09.2000, p. 1111-1114.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Diamond, DA, Paltiel, HJ, DiCanzio, J, Zurakowski, D, Bauer, SB, Atala, A, Ephraim, PL, Grant, R & Retik, AB 2000, 'Comparative assessment of pediatric testicular volume: Orchidometer versus ultrasound', Journal of Urology, vol. 164, no. 3 II, pp. 1111-1114.
Diamond DA, Paltiel HJ, DiCanzio J, Zurakowski D, Bauer SB, Atala A et al. Comparative assessment of pediatric testicular volume: Orchidometer versus ultrasound. Journal of Urology. 2000 Sep;164(3 II):1111-1114.
Diamond, David A. ; Paltiel, Harriet J. ; DiCanzio, James ; Zurakowski, David ; Bauer, Stuart B. ; Atala, Anthony ; Ephraim, Patti L ; Grant, Rosemary ; Retik, Alan B. / Comparative assessment of pediatric testicular volume : Orchidometer versus ultrasound. In: Journal of Urology. 2000 ; Vol. 164, No. 3 II. pp. 1111-1114.
@article{f0bf977732394d288aae889f5c52175b,
title = "Comparative assessment of pediatric testicular volume: Orchidometer versus ultrasound",
abstract = "Purpose: Testicular volume measurements obtained with the Prader and Rochester orchidometers were compared to those obtained using scrotal ultrasound. The ability of each orchidometer versus ultrasound in detecting volume differential between 2 testes and the accuracy of orchidometer measurement by a less experienced examiner to that of a urologist were compared. Materials and Methods: A total of 65 males were examined by the attending urologist and urology nurse using the Prader and Rochester orchidometers, and scrotal ultrasound was subsequently performed by an attending radiologist. Statistical analysis of the results was performed to determine the correlation of orchidometer measurements between examiners, as well as with ultrasound, and sensitivity and specificity of orchidometer and ultrasound in detecting defined volume differentials between testes of 10{\%}, 15{\%}, 20{\%} and 25{\%}. Results: There was a strong linear relationship between testicular volume measurements using either orchidometer and ultrasound. To detect a defined volume differential as determined by ultrasound orchidometer sensitivity was weak, whereas orchidometer specificity was better. There was a strong correlation between orchidometer measurements of the urology nurse and attending urologist. Conclusions: Although the orchidometer remains valuable in assessing size of the individual testis, it is too insensitive to volume differentials relative to ultrasound to be used routinely to determine growth impairment. For this reason observation of an adolescent with varicocele should include an annual ultrasound assessment of testicular volume.",
keywords = "Pediatrics, Testis, Ultrasonography",
author = "Diamond, {David A.} and Paltiel, {Harriet J.} and James DiCanzio and David Zurakowski and Bauer, {Stuart B.} and Anthony Atala and Ephraim, {Patti L} and Rosemary Grant and Retik, {Alan B.}",
year = "2000",
month = "9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "164",
pages = "1111--1114",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3 II",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative assessment of pediatric testicular volume

T2 - Orchidometer versus ultrasound

AU - Diamond, David A.

AU - Paltiel, Harriet J.

AU - DiCanzio, James

AU - Zurakowski, David

AU - Bauer, Stuart B.

AU - Atala, Anthony

AU - Ephraim, Patti L

AU - Grant, Rosemary

AU - Retik, Alan B.

PY - 2000/9

Y1 - 2000/9

N2 - Purpose: Testicular volume measurements obtained with the Prader and Rochester orchidometers were compared to those obtained using scrotal ultrasound. The ability of each orchidometer versus ultrasound in detecting volume differential between 2 testes and the accuracy of orchidometer measurement by a less experienced examiner to that of a urologist were compared. Materials and Methods: A total of 65 males were examined by the attending urologist and urology nurse using the Prader and Rochester orchidometers, and scrotal ultrasound was subsequently performed by an attending radiologist. Statistical analysis of the results was performed to determine the correlation of orchidometer measurements between examiners, as well as with ultrasound, and sensitivity and specificity of orchidometer and ultrasound in detecting defined volume differentials between testes of 10%, 15%, 20% and 25%. Results: There was a strong linear relationship between testicular volume measurements using either orchidometer and ultrasound. To detect a defined volume differential as determined by ultrasound orchidometer sensitivity was weak, whereas orchidometer specificity was better. There was a strong correlation between orchidometer measurements of the urology nurse and attending urologist. Conclusions: Although the orchidometer remains valuable in assessing size of the individual testis, it is too insensitive to volume differentials relative to ultrasound to be used routinely to determine growth impairment. For this reason observation of an adolescent with varicocele should include an annual ultrasound assessment of testicular volume.

AB - Purpose: Testicular volume measurements obtained with the Prader and Rochester orchidometers were compared to those obtained using scrotal ultrasound. The ability of each orchidometer versus ultrasound in detecting volume differential between 2 testes and the accuracy of orchidometer measurement by a less experienced examiner to that of a urologist were compared. Materials and Methods: A total of 65 males were examined by the attending urologist and urology nurse using the Prader and Rochester orchidometers, and scrotal ultrasound was subsequently performed by an attending radiologist. Statistical analysis of the results was performed to determine the correlation of orchidometer measurements between examiners, as well as with ultrasound, and sensitivity and specificity of orchidometer and ultrasound in detecting defined volume differentials between testes of 10%, 15%, 20% and 25%. Results: There was a strong linear relationship between testicular volume measurements using either orchidometer and ultrasound. To detect a defined volume differential as determined by ultrasound orchidometer sensitivity was weak, whereas orchidometer specificity was better. There was a strong correlation between orchidometer measurements of the urology nurse and attending urologist. Conclusions: Although the orchidometer remains valuable in assessing size of the individual testis, it is too insensitive to volume differentials relative to ultrasound to be used routinely to determine growth impairment. For this reason observation of an adolescent with varicocele should include an annual ultrasound assessment of testicular volume.

KW - Pediatrics

KW - Testis

KW - Ultrasonography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033883539&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033883539&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10958754

AN - SCOPUS:0033883539

VL - 164

SP - 1111

EP - 1114

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 3 II

ER -