Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 Mar;11(2):261-5.
doi: 10.1038/aja.2008.48. Epub 2009 Jan 19.

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

Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Ming-Li Hsieh et al. Asian J Androl. 2009 Mar.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Testicular volume assessed by ultrasonography. (A): The largest length (L) and height (H) in the longitudinal plane were measured using electronic calipers. (B): Adequate width (W) in the transverse plane was also obtained using calipers.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The linear relationship between actual testicular volumes and volumes determined by different formulae. The straight, dashed lines represent the theoretical linear relationship obtained from regression parameters. The curved, dashed lines represent the 95% confidence intervals. Formula 1 = length (L) × width (W) × height (H) × 0.52, Formula 2 = L × W × H × 0.71, and Formula 3 = L × W2 × 0.52. Although all three formulae tended to underestimate the testicular volume, formula 2 resulted in values that differed the least from the actual volume.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Takihara H, Cosentino MJ, Sakatoku J, Cockett AT. Significance of testicular size measurement in andrology: II. Correlation of testicular size with testicular function. J Urol. 1987;137:416–9. - PubMed
    1. Lenz S, Giwercman A, Elsborg A, Cohr KH, Jelnes JE, et al. Ultrasonic testicular texture and size in 444 men from the general population: correlation to semen quality. Eur Urol. 1993;24:231–8. - PubMed
    1. Arai T, Kitahara S, Horiuchi S, Sumi S, Yoshida K. Relationship of testicular volume to semen profiles and serum hormone concentrations in infertile Japanese males. Int J Fertil Women's Med. 1998;43:40–7. - PubMed
    1. Sakamoto H, Ogawa Y, Yoshida H. Relationship between testicular volume and testicular function: comparison of the Prader orchidometric and ultrasonographic measurements in patients with infertility. Asian J Androl. 2008;10:319–24. - PubMed
    1. Diamond DA, Paltiel HJ, DiCanzio J, Zurakowski D, Bauer SB. Comparative assessment of pediatric testicular volume: orchidometer versus ultrasound. J Urol. 2000;164:1111–4. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources