Please wait a minute...
Search Asian J Urol Advanced Search
Share 
Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 27-32    doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2021.12.006
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
Color Doppler ultrasound imaging in varicoceles: Is the difference in venous diameter encountered during Valsalva predictive of palpable varicocele grade?
Kelly Lehner*(),Catherine Ingram,Utsav Bansal,Colleen Baca,Adithya Balasubramanian,Nannan Thirumavalavan,Jason M. Scovell,Saneal Rajanahally,Matthew Pollard,Larry I. Lipshultz
Baylor College of Medicine, Scott Department of Urology, Houston, TX, USA
下载:  HTML  PDF (2074KB) 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
Abstract: 

Objective: The clinical grading system for varicoceles is subjective and dependent on clinician experience. Color Doppler ultrasound (US) has not been standardized in the diagnosis of varicoceles. We aimed to determine if US measurement of varicocele could be predictive of World Health Organization (WHO) varicocele grade.

Methods: Men who presented for either scrotal pain or infertility to a tertiary men's health clinic underwent physical examination, and varicoceles were graded following WHO criteria (0=subclinical, 1, 2, 3). US was used to measure largest venous diameter in the pampiniform plexus bilaterally at rest and during Valsalva maneuver. Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis was used to determine if resting diameter, diameter during Valsalva, or change in diameter between at rest and during Valsalva provided the highest sensitivity and specificity for determining clinical grade. Threshold values for diameter were determined from these receiver operator characteristic curves.

Results: A total of 102 men (50 with clinical varicocele and 52 with subclinical varicocele) were included. Diameter at rest was the best ultrasonographic discriminator between subclinical and clinical varicoceles (area under the curve [AUC]=0.67) with a diameter threshold of 3.0 mm (sensitivity 79%, specificity 42%). Diameter during Valsalva had the greatest AUC for determining clinical Grades 1 versus 2 (AUC=0.57) with diameter threshold of 5.7 mm (sensitivity 71%, specificity 33%). For differentiating between Grades 2 and 3, diameter at rest had the greatest AUC of 0.65 with a threshold of 3.6 mm (sensitivity 71%, specificity 58%).

Conclusion: Our results corroborate other studies that have shown a weak correlation between US and clinical grading. The use of diameter during Valsalva was less predictive than diameter at rest and was only clinically significant in differentiating between Grade 1 and 2 varicocele. A standardized method for determining clinically relevant varicoceles on US would allow for improved patient counseling and clinical decision-making.

Key words:  Varicocele    Ultrasound    Doppler    Venous plexus    Infertility
收稿日期:  2020-06-12      修回日期:  2022-02-27      接受日期:  2021-06-15      出版日期:  2023-01-20      发布日期:  2023-02-06      整期出版日期:  2023-01-20
引用本文:    
. [J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 27-32.
Kelly Lehner,Catherine Ingram,Utsav Bansal,Colleen Baca,Adithya Balasubramanian,Nannan Thirumavalavan,Jason M. Scovell,Saneal Rajanahally,Matthew Pollard,Larry I. Lipshultz. Color Doppler ultrasound imaging in varicoceles: Is the difference in venous diameter encountered during Valsalva predictive of palpable varicocele grade?. Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 27-32.
链接本文:  
http://www.ajurology.com/CN/10.1016/j.ajur.2021.12.006  或          http://www.ajurology.com/CN/Y2023/V10/I1/27
Characteristic Value
Age, year
Mean±SD 34±7
Range 15-57
Reason for presentation, n
Pain 8
Infertility 94
BMI, kg/m2
Mean±SD 30.4±9.1
Range 19.3-88.0
Left testicle clinical grade, n
0 52
1 12
2 31
3 7
Right testicle clinical gradea, n
0 52
1 19
2 25
3 1
  
Clinical grade At rest During Valsalva Difference between means
Mean±SD Range Mean±SD Range
Grade 0 (n=52) 3.12±0.98 0-5.2 4.46±1.52 2.2-10.3 1.34
Grade 1 (n=12) 3.71±0.88 2.4-5.6 4.86±1.42 3.4-7.5 1.15
Grade 2 (n=31) 3.89±1.56 1.3-7.6 4.84±2.62 0-14.2 0.94
Grade 3 (n=7) 4.60±1.74 2.7-8.1 4.96±1.97 2.7-8.8 0.36
Total (n=102) 3.52±1.30 0-8.1 4.65±1.92 0-14.2 1.13
p-Value 0.004 0.776
  
Clinical grade At rest During Valsalva Difference between means
Mean±SD Range Mean±SD Range
Grade 0 (n=52) 3.04±1.18 0-6.2 4.14±1.21 2.1-6.9 1.1
Grade 1 (n=19) 2.98±1.07 0-5.3 4.20±1.17 2.4-6.0 1.22
Grade 2 (n=20) 3.39±0.92 1.4-4.8 4.14±0.99 2.2-5.6 0.75
Grade 3 (n=11) 3.75±1.41 2.2-6.7 3.95±1.64 2.1-8.1 0.5
Total (n=102) 3.18±1.15 0-6.7 4.13±1.20 2.1-8.1 0.95
p-Value 0.202 0.961
  
  
  
  
Varicocele WHO grade (physical exam) Best Measurement Cut-off value (mm) Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) AUC
0 vs. 1-3 Diameter at rest 3.0 79 42 0.67
1 vs. 2 Diameter during Valsalva 5.7 71 33 0.57
2 vs. 3 Diameter at rest 3.6 71 58 0.65
  
[1] Paick S, Choi WS. Varicocele and testicular pain: a review. World J Mens Health 2019; 37:4e11.
doi: 10.5534/wjmh.170010 pmid: 29774668
[2] American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Report on varicocele and infertility: an AUA best practice policy and ASRM practice committee report https://www.auanet.org/documents/education/clinical-guidance/Varicocele-Archive.pdf. [Accessed 1 July 2021].
[3] Gat Y, Bachar GN, Zukerman Z, Belenky A, Gorenish M. Phys-ical examination may miss the diagnosis of bilateral varico-cele: a comparative study of 4 diagnostic modalities. J Urol 2004; 172:1414e7.
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000138540.57137.5f
[4] Jungwirth A, Giwercman A, Tournaye H, Diemer T, Kopa Z, Dohle G, et al. European association of Urology guidelines on male infertility: the 2012 update. Eur Urol 2012; 62:324e32.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.048 pmid: 22591628
[5] Dubin L, Amelar RD. Varicocele size and results of varicoce-lectomy in selected subfertile men with varicocele. Fertil Steril 1970; 21:606e9.
doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)37684-1 pmid: 5433164
[6] Rowe PJ, Comhaire FH, Mahmoud AM. WHO manual for the standardized investigation, diagnosis, and management of the infertile male. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42437. [Accessed 27 November 2021].
[7] Freeman S, Bertolotto M, Richenberg J, Bel?eld J, Dogra V, Huang DY, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of varicoceles: guidelines and recommendations of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology Scrotal and Penile Imaging Working Group (ESUR-SPIWG) for detection, classi?cation, and grading. Eur Radiol 2020; 30:11e25.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06280-y pmid: 31332561
[8] Cocuzza MS, Tiseo BC, Srougi V, Wood GJA, Cardoso JPGF, Esteves SC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination compared with color Doppler ultrasound in the determination of varicocele diagnosis and grading: impact of urologists’ experience. Andrology 2020; 8:1160e6.
doi: 10.1111/andr.12797
[9] World Health Organization. The influence of varicocele on parameters of fertility in a large group of men presenting to infertility clinics. World health organization. Fertil Steril 1992; 57:1289e93.
pmid: 1601152
[10] Hadziselimovic F, Herzog B, Jenny P. The chance for fertility in adolescent boys after corrective surgery for varicocele. J Urol 1995; 154:731e3.
doi: 10.1097/00005392-199508000-00106 pmid: 7609165
[11] Thirumavalavan N, Scovell JM, Balasubramanian A, Kohn TP, Ji B, Hasan A, et al. The impact of microsurgical repair of subclinical and clinical varicoceles on total motile sperm count: is there a difference? Urology 2018; 120:109e13.
doi: S0090-4295(18)30627-7 pmid: 29981299
[12] Kim HH, Goldstein M. Adult varicocele. Curr Opin Urol 2008; 18:608e12.
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e3283136493 pmid: 18832947
[13] Al-Ali BM, Marszalek M, Shamloul R, Pummer K, Trummer H. Clinical parameters and semen analysis in 716 Austrian pa-tients with varicocele. Urology 2010; 75:1069e73.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.11.042
[14] Grasso M, Lania C, Castelli M, Galli L, Franzoso F, Rigatti P. Low-grade left varicocele in patients over 30 years old: the effect of spermatic vein ligation on fertility. BJU Int 2000; 85:305e7.
pmid: 10671887
[15] Samplaski MK, Jarvi KA. Prognostic factors for a favorable outcome after varicocele repair in adolescents and adults. Asian J Androl 2016; 18:217e21.
doi: 10.4103/1008-682X.169558 pmid: 26732108
[16] Ishikawa T, Fujisawa M. Effect of age and grade on surgery for patients with varicocele. Urology 2005; 65:768e72.
pmid: 15833525
[17] Takahara M, Ichikawa T, Shiseki Y, Nakamura T, Shimazaki J. Relationship between grade of varicocele and the response to varicocelectomy. Int J Urol 1996; 3:282e5.
pmid: 8844284
[18] Steckel J, Dicker AP, Goldstein M. Relationship between varicocele size and response to varicocelectomy. J Urol 1993; 149:769e71.
doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36203-1 pmid: 8455240
[19] Orda R, Sayfan J, Manor H, Witz E, Sofer Y. Diagnosis of varicocele and postoperative evaluation using inguinal ultra-sonography. Ann Surg 1987; 206:99e101.
pmid: 3300579
[20] Leslie SW, Sajjad H, Siref LE. Varicocele. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448113/.[Accessed 1 July 2021].
[21] Caskurlu T, Tasci AI, Resim S, Sahinkanat T, Ekerbicer H. Reliability of venous diameter in the diagnosis of subclinical varicocele. Urol Int 2003; 71:83e6.
pmid: 12845267
[22] Cina A, Minnetti M, Pirronti T, Spampinato MV, Canadè A, Oliva G, et al. Sonographic quantitative evaluation of scrotal veins in healthy subjects: normative values and implications for the diagnosis of varicocele. Eur Urol 2006; 50:345e50.
pmid: 16542771
[23] Hoekstra T, Witt MA. The correlation of internal spermatic vein palpability with ultrasonographic diameter and reversal of venous flow. J Urol 1995; 153:82e4.
doi: 10.1097/00005392-199501000-00029 pmid: 7966798
[24] Metin A, Bulut O, Temizkan M. Relationship between the left spermatic vein diameter measured by ultrasound and palpated varicocele and Doppler ultrasound ?ndings. Int Urol Nephrol 1991; 23:65e8.
pmid: 1938219
[25] Pilatz A, Altinkilic B, Kohler E, Marconi M, Weidner W. Color Doppler ultrasound imaging in varicoceles: is the venous diameter suf?cient for predicting clinical and subclinical varicocele? World J Urol 2011; 29:645e50.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0701-4 pmid: 21607575
[26] Karami M, Mazdak H, Khanbabapour S, Adibi A, Nasr N. Determination of the best position and site for color Doppler ultrasonographic evaluation of the testicular vein to de?ne the clinical grades of varicocele ultrasonographically. Adv Biomed Res 2014; 3:17. https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9175.124647.
doi: 10.4103/2277-9175.124647 pmid: 24592367
No related articles found!
[1] Masayuki Kurokawa,Sei Naito,Tomoyuki Kato,Masaki Ushijima,Atsushi Yamagishi,Toshihiko Sakurai,Hayato Nishida,Norihiko Tsuchiya. Complete response to an anti-programmed cell death 1 antibody following a combination therapy of an anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 antibody and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor for metastatic renal cell carcinoma[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 103 -105 .
[2] Liping Chen,Zhijia Liu,Hongwei Bai. Outcome of reconstructive surgery for patients with urogenital tuberculosis[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 106 -108 .
[3] Shikha Goyal,Kannan Periasamy,Renu Madan,Poorva Vias,Vigneshwaran Chandran. Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for oligometastatic inguinal lymph node in castrate resistant prostate cancer[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 109 -112 .
[4] Angela Pecoraro,Daniele Amparore. Re: Amparore D, Pecoraro A, Piramide F, Verri P, Checcucci E, De Cillis S, et al. Three-dimensional imaging reconstruction of the kidney's anatomy for a tailored minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: A pilot study. Asian J Urol 2022;9:263-71.: A further step towards personalized surgery through virtual clip application[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 113 -114 .
[5] Angela Pecoraro,Daniele Amparore. Reply to Grange PC, Morris PT, Benz HL, Buggele WA, Fryrear RS. Letter to the editor re: Amparore D, Pecoraro A, Piramide F, Verri P, Checcucci E, De Cillis S, et al. Three-dimensional imaging reconstruction of the kidney's anatomy for a tailored minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: A pilot study. Asian J Urol 2022;9:263-71. A further step towards personalized surgery through virtual clip application[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 115 -116 .
[6] Maryam Emami,Pejman Shadpour,Koosha Kamali,Nima Narimani,Jalil Hosseini. Female anterior wall onlay urethroplasty with lower lip buccal mucosal graft: Importance of the laterally extended incision[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 33 -38 .
[7] Kirill Kosilov,Irina Kuzina,Vladimir Kuznetsov,Olga Barabash,Ekaterina Fedorishcheva. Corrigendum to “Efficacy of a combination of dutasteride, tadalafil, and solifenacin in the treatment of previously unsuccessful patients” [Asian J Urol 9 (2022) 42-50][J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 117 -118 .
[8] Junjie Fan,Hua Liang,Jinhai Fan,Lei Li,Guanjun Zhang,Xinqi Pei,Tao Yang,Dalin He,Kaijie Wu. Diagnostic accuracy of cystoscopic biopsy for tumour grade in outpatients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder and the risk factors of upgrading[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 19 -26 .
[9] Denis V. Krakhotkin,Volodymyr A. Chernylovskyi,Kemal Sarica,Arman Tsaturyan,Evangelos Liatsikos,Jurijus Makevicius,Nikolay Yu Iglovikov,Dmitry N. Pikhovkin. Diagnostic value ultrasound signs of stones less than or equal to 10 mm and clinico-radiological variants of ureteric colic[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 39 -49 .
[10] Hua Gong,Kang Chen,Lan Zhou,Yongchao Jin,Weihua Chen. Deleted in liver cancer 1 suppresses the growth of prostate cancer cells through inhibiting Rho-associated protein kinase pathway[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 50 -57 .
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed