Publisher Full Text
Transrectal US and endorectal MR imaging in partial and complete obstruction of the seminal duct system. A comparative study.Acta Radiol. 2000 May; 41(3):288-95.AR
Abstract
PURPOSE
To evaluate transrectal ultrasonography (US) and MR imaging findings of infertile patients with suspected complete or partial obstruction of the seminal duct system.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Two hundred and eighteen infertile patients with low ejaculate volume were evaluated by transrectal US. Endorectal MR imaging was performed on 62/218 patients. Prostatic cysts, ejaculatory duct (ED) dilatation (>2 mm in width), ED calculi or calcifications, seminal vesicle (SV) dilatation (a.p. diameter >15 mm), SV hypo/agenesis (a.p. diameter <7 mm), SV cysts (>5 mm), vasal agenesis and chronic prostatitis (coarse calcifications, heterogeneity in prostate) were considered significant findings for obstruction of the seminal duct system.
RESULTS
Pathologic findings were detected in 75% and 61% of patients with azoospermia on transrectal US and MR imaging, respectively. Transrectal US and MR imaging did not reveal any pathologies in 64.7% and 59.1% of patients with nonazoospermia, respectively. The incidences of hypoplastic/atrophic SV (12/48 vs. 5/170), SV agenesis (6/48 vs. 1/170), vasal agenesis (5/48 vs. 1/170) were significantly higher in the azoospermic subgroup (p<0.002).
CONCLUSION
US is a good method for initial evaluation of these patients especially in complete obstruction. Endorectal MR imaging should be reserved for selected patients in whom results of transrectal US are not conclusive.
Links
MeSH
Pub Type(s)
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Language
eng
PubMed ID
10866088
Citation
Engin, G, et al. "Transrectal US and Endorectal MR Imaging in Partial and Complete Obstruction of the Seminal Duct System. a Comparative Study." Acta Radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987), vol. 41, no. 3, 2000, pp. 288-95.
Engin G, Kadioğlu A, Orhan I, et al. Transrectal US and endorectal MR imaging in partial and complete obstruction of the seminal duct system. A comparative study. Acta Radiol. 2000;41(3):288-95.
Engin, G., Kadioğlu, A., Orhan, I., Akdöl, S., & Rozanes, I. (2000). Transrectal US and endorectal MR imaging in partial and complete obstruction of the seminal duct system. A comparative study. Acta Radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987), 41(3), 288-95.
Engin G, et al. Transrectal US and Endorectal MR Imaging in Partial and Complete Obstruction of the Seminal Duct System. a Comparative Study. Acta Radiol. 2000;41(3):288-95. PubMed PMID: 10866088.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR
T1 - Transrectal US and endorectal MR imaging in partial and complete obstruction of the seminal duct system. A comparative study.
AU - Engin,G,
AU - Kadioğlu,A,
AU - Orhan,I,
AU - Akdöl,S,
AU - Rozanes,I,
PY - 2000/6/24/pubmed
PY - 2000/7/15/medline
PY - 2000/6/24/entrez
SP - 288
EP - 95
JF - Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987)
JO - Acta Radiol
VL - 41
IS - 3
N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate transrectal ultrasonography (US) and MR imaging findings of infertile patients with suspected complete or partial obstruction of the seminal duct system. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred and eighteen infertile patients with low ejaculate volume were evaluated by transrectal US. Endorectal MR imaging was performed on 62/218 patients. Prostatic cysts, ejaculatory duct (ED) dilatation (>2 mm in width), ED calculi or calcifications, seminal vesicle (SV) dilatation (a.p. diameter >15 mm), SV hypo/agenesis (a.p. diameter <7 mm), SV cysts (>5 mm), vasal agenesis and chronic prostatitis (coarse calcifications, heterogeneity in prostate) were considered significant findings for obstruction of the seminal duct system. RESULTS: Pathologic findings were detected in 75% and 61% of patients with azoospermia on transrectal US and MR imaging, respectively. Transrectal US and MR imaging did not reveal any pathologies in 64.7% and 59.1% of patients with nonazoospermia, respectively. The incidences of hypoplastic/atrophic SV (12/48 vs. 5/170), SV agenesis (6/48 vs. 1/170), vasal agenesis (5/48 vs. 1/170) were significantly higher in the azoospermic subgroup (p<0.002). CONCLUSION: US is a good method for initial evaluation of these patients especially in complete obstruction. Endorectal MR imaging should be reserved for selected patients in whom results of transrectal US are not conclusive.
SN - 0284-1851
UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/10866088/Transrectal_US_and_endorectal_MR_imaging_in_partial_and_complete_obstruction_of_the_seminal_duct_system__A_comparative_study_
L2 - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/028418500127345271?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed
DB - PRIME
DP - Unbound Medicine
ER -
