MORPHOMETRIC PARAMETERS AND TOPOGRAPHY OF THE HUMAN PROSTATE GLAND OF THE FIRST MATURE PERIOD ACCORDING TO MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
https://doi.org/10.20340/mv-mn.2018.26(3):8-13
Abstract
Magnetic resonance tomograms of the pelvic organs of patients aged 21 to 35 years (n = 40) without complaints from the urinary system and without volumetric processes in the pelvic cavity were studied and interpreted to determine the in vivo topographic and anatomical characteristics of the prostate gland and comparison of the obtained data with the existing ones. The following parameters were evaluated: the linear dimensions of the prostate gland (sagittal, frontal, vertical), the volume of the prostate gland, the distance from the gland to the pubic symphysis, to the plane of the entrance to the pelvis, the distance to the sacrum, to the pelvic ring right and left, the length and the square of the contact surface of the prostatic gland to urine bladder, to the rectum and to the seminal vesicles, the distance from the anus to the lowest point of the gland's contacts to the rectum. For all measurements, the mean, the error of the mean, the minimum, the maximum values, and the standard deviation of the observation were calculated. The prostate gland is located below the plane of entry into the pelvis, occupies the middle position in it, the average volume of the prostate gland at the studied stage of ontogenesis is 23.1 ± 0.8 cm3 with a minimum value of 14.6 cm3 and maximum - 33.0 cm3 with an overwhelming prevalence patients with mean values (22 patients from the sample). There is significant variability of the skeleto-topic and syn-topic parameters of the prostate gland.
About the Author
I. A. Baryshnikov
Оренбургский государственный медицинский университет
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Alyaev YuG, Sinicyn VE, Grigor'ev NA. Magnitno-rezonansnaya tomografiya v urologii.- M.: Prakticheskaya medicina, 2005.- 272s.
2. Trufanov GE. Magnitno-rezonansnaya tomografiya. Rukovodstvo dlya vrachej.- St-Peterburg: Foliant, 2007.- 688s.
3. Khnykin FN. Topografo-anatomicheskie osobennosti prostaty i ee ekstraorgannyh sosudov u vzroslogo cheloveka: avtoref. dis. kand. med. nauk.- St-Peterburg: Voenno-Medicinskaya akademiya im. S.M. Kirova, 2005.- 23s.
4. Budnik AF. Morfofunkcional'naya harakteristika prostaty cheloveka v postnatal'nom ontogeneze: avtoref. dis. kand. med. nauk.- Saransk: MGU im. N.P. Ogareva, 2012.- 22s.
5. Minakov AA, Miroshnikov VM, Minakov AD, Zurnadzhan SA. Prostata v ontogeneze cheloveka.- Astrahan': AGMA, 2007.- 174s.
6. Allen KS, Kressel HY, Arger PH, Pollack HM. Age-related changes of the prostate: evaluation by MRI image. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989:152(1):77-81.
7. Coakley FV, Hricak H. Radiologic anatomy of the prostate gland: clinical approach. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38:15-30.
8. McNeal JE. Normal and pathologic anatomy of prostate. Urology. 1981;17(suppl.3):11-16.
9. Piccoli CW, Rifkin MD. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and bladder. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 1990;2(3):51-66.
10. Bhavsar Anil, Sadhna Verma. Anatomic Imaging of the Prostate: Review article. BioMed Research International. 2014;2014:1- 9/ID 728539. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/728539
11. Shaish H, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. Prostate MR Imaging: An Update. Radiol Clin North Am. 2017;55(2):303-320. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2016.10.011.
12. Matsugasumi T, Fujihara A, Ushijima S, Kanazawa M et al. Morphometric analysis of prostate zonal anatomy using magnetic resonance imaging: impact on age-related changes in patients in Japan and the USA. BJU Int. 2017;120(4):497-504. doi: 10.1111/bju.13823.
13. Roobol MJ, Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Jones JS et al. Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group. World J Urol. 2012;30(2):149-55. doi:10.1007/s00345-011-0804-y.
14. Lee JH, Lee SW. Impact of prostate volume on erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation. Aging Male. 2016;19(2):106-10. doi:10.3109/13685538.2016.1150993.
15. Aaron L, Franco OE, Hayward SW. Review of Prostate Anatomy and Embryology and the Etiology of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Urol Clin North Am. 2016;43(3):279-88. doi: 0.1016/j.ucl.2016.04.012.
16. Röthke M, Blondin D, Schlemmer HP, Franiel T. PI-RADS Classification: structured reporting for MRI of the Prostate. Clin Men’s Health. 2013;4:30-8.
17. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757. doi: 10.1007/ s00330-011-2377-y
18. Medved M, Soylu-Boy FN, Karademir I. et al. High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203:85-90.
19. Korobkin AS, Shariya MA, Chaban AS, Voskanvan GA, Vinarov AZ. Magnetic resonance semiotics of prostate cancer according to the PI-RADS classification. The clinical diagnostic algorithm of a study. Vestn Rentgenol Radiol. 2015;(4):18-28.
20. Lysov N. A. Gelashvili P. A., Supilnikov A. A. Methodological basis of morphological studies objectification. Bulletin of medical Institute "REAVIZ": rehabilitation, doctor and health. 2011;2: 53-65.
Review
For citations:
Baryshnikov I.A. MORPHOMETRIC PARAMETERS AND TOPOGRAPHY OF THE HUMAN PROSTATE GLAND OF THE FIRST MATURE PERIOD ACCORDING TO MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING. Morphological newsletter. 2018;26(3):8-13. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20340/mv-mn.2018.26(3):8-13
Views:
324
