Shorter anogenital distance is observed in patients with testicular microlithiasis using magnetic resonance imaging
Tóm tắt
To investigate the anogenital distance in patients with and without testicular microlithiasis (TML). A total of 101 patients underwent a conventional standard clinical B-mode scrotal ultrasonography and scrotal MRI. The patients were divided into two groups: patients with TML and non-TML. The latter served as control group. The anogenital distance was measured by a straight line from center of the anus to the posterior base of scrotum using MRI. In the TML group, mean AGD was 5.4 (± 1.07) cm (range 29–79 mm), and in non-TML 5.9 (± 1.03) cm (range 35–85 mm) (p = 0.04). MRI is a useful tool to measure the AGD. It is easy to perform without any discomfort to patients. We found AGD to be lower in patients with TML.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Doherty FJ, Mullins TL, Sant GR, Drinkwater MA, Ucci AAJ (1987) Testicular microlithiasis: a unique sonographic appearance. J Ultrasound Med 6:389–392
Fedder J, Gravholt CH, Kristensen SG et al (2015) Testicular sperm sampling by subcapsular orchiectomy in Klinefelter patients: a new simplified treatment approach. Urology 86:744–750
Goede J, Hack WWM, van der Voort-Doedens LM, Pierik FH, Looijenga LHJ, Sijstermans K (2010) Testicular microlithiasis in boys and young men with congenital or acquired undescended (ascending) testis. J Urol 183:1539–1544
Aizenstein RI, DiDomenico D, Wilbur AC, O´Neil HK (1998) Testicular microlithiasis: association with male infertility. J Clin Ultrasound 26:195–198
Pedersen MR, Bartlett EC, Rafaelsen SR et al (2017) Testicular microlithiasis is associated with ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Acta Radiol Open 6:205846011772367
van Casteren NJ, Looijenga LH, Dohle GR (2009) Testicular microlithiasis and carcinoma in situ overview and proposed clinical guideline. Int J Androl 32:279–287
Peterson AC, Bauman JM, Light DE, McMann LP, Costabile RA (2001) The prevalence of testicular microlithiasis in an asymptomatic population of men 18 to 35 years old. J Urol 166:2061–2064
Dantsev IS, Ivkin EV, Tryakin AA et al (2018) Genes associated with testicular germ cell tumors and testicular dysgenesis in patients with testicular microlithiasis. Asian J Androl 20:593–599
Skakkebæk NE, Rajpert-De Meyts E, Main KM (2001) Testicular dysgenesis syndrome: an increasingly common developmental disorder with environmental aspects. Hum Reprod 16:972–978
Eisenberg ML, Lipshultz LI (2015) Anogenital distance as a measure of human male fertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 32:479–484
Mendiola J, Stahlhut RW, Jorgensen N, Liu F, Swan SH (2011) Shorter anogenital distance predicts poorer semen quality in young men in Rochester. Environ Heal Perspect 119:958–963
Eisenberg ML, Jensen TK, Walters RC, Skakkebaek NE, Lipshultz LI (2012) The relationship between anogenital distance and reproductive hormone levels in adult men. J Urol 187:594–598
Virtanen HE, Sadov S, Toppari J (2012) Prenatal exposure to smoking and male reproductive health. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 19:228–232
Thankamony A, Lek N, Carroll D et al (2013) Anogenital distance and penile length in infants with hypospadias or cryptorchidism: comparison with normative data. Environ Health Perspect 122:207–211
Hsieh MH, Breyer BN, Eisenberg ML, Baskin LS (2008) Associations among hypospadias, cryptorchidism, anogenital distance, and endocrine disruption. Curr Urol Rep 9:137–142
Fisher BG, Thankamony A, Huges IA, Ong KK, Dunger DB, Acerini CL (2016) Prenatal paracetamol exposure is associated with shorter anogenital distance in male infants. Hum Reprod 31:2642–2650
Skakkebaek N, Rajpert-De Meyts E, Main K (2001) Testicular dysgenesis syndrome: an increasingly common developmental disorder with environmental aspects. Hum Reprod 16:972–978
Richenberg J, Belfield J, Ramchandani P et al (2015) Testicular microlithiasis imaging and follow-up: guidelines of the ESUR scrotal imaging subcommittee. Eur Radiol 25:323–330
Yee WS, Kim YS, Kim SJ, Choi JB, Kim SI, Ahn HS (2011) Testicular microlithiasis: prevalence and clinical significance in a population referred for scrotal ultrasonography. Korean J Urol 52:172–177
Eisenberg M, Hsieh T-C, Lipshultz LI (2013) The relationship between anogenital distance and age. Andrology 1:90–93
Mendiola J, Onate-Celdrán J, Samper-Mateo P et al (2016) Comparability and reproducibility of adult male anogenital distance measurements for two different methods. Andrology 4:626–631
Foresta C, Valente U, Di Nisio A et al (2018) Anogenital distance is associated with genital measures and seminal parameters but not anthropometrics in a larger cohort of young adult men. Hum Reprod 33:1628–1635