MP16-09 TRUS CHARACTERISTICS OF CHRONIC PROSTATITIS/CHRONIC PELVIC PAIN SYNDROME: COMPARISON WITH AGE-MATCHED CONTROLS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyInfections/Inflammation of the Genitourinary Tract: Prostate & Genitalia1 Apr 2014MP16-09 TRUS CHARACTERISTICS OF CHRONIC PROSTATITIS/CHRONIC PELVIC PAIN SYNDROME: COMPARISON WITH AGE-MATCHED CONTROLS Dorit Zilberman, Matvet Tsivian, Yoram Mor, and Gil Raviv Dorit ZilbermanDorit Zilberman More articles by this author , Matvet TsivianMatvet Tsivian More articles by this author , Yoram MorYoram Mor More articles by this author , and Gil RavivGil Raviv More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.582AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES We sought to explore the yield of trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) in cases of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). METHODS The records of all patients, who were referred for TRUS due to CP/CPPS, were retrospectively reviewed. Digital rectal exam (DRE) was performed before TRUS. The following parameters were recorded: prostate length; width; height; volume; external border; peripheral zone (PZ); transitional zone (TZ); TZ/PZ border; seminal vesicle (SV); presence of median lobe; dilation of vas deferens (VD) or ejaculatory duct (ED); presence of significant post-void residual (PVR). Data were compared to an age-matched control group that had undergone the same imaging for other reasons. RESULTS Between the years 2004-2012, 216 patients aged 42 years (35-50) underwent DRE and TRUS by a single operator. Per DRE, their prostates appeared smaller (15.5 cc vs. 25 cc, p<0.001) and less suspicious compared with the control group (3.2% vs. 9.3%, p=0.016). Differences seen in TRUS between the study and the control groups, respectively, were as follows: less irregularities and less hypoechoic areas in the PZ (p<0.001); less cystic spaces and less median lobes in the TZ (p=0.008, p=0.001, respectively); less ED dilation (5.1% vs. 11.6%, p=0.02); more calcifications (51.4% vs. 38%, p=0.007); more VD dilation (19.1% vs. 11.6%, p=0.044); more periurethral vascularity (2.8% vs. 0%, p=0.03). No differences were seen in SV parameters and in PVR. CONCLUSIONS TRUS for CP/CPPS, albeit different compared to age-matched controls, has no pathognomonic findings. Therefore, for this entity it has very little yield. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e156-e157 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Dorit Zilberman More articles by this author Matvet Tsivian More articles by this author Yoram Mor More articles by this author Gil Raviv More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...