StayCurrentMD · The impact of ultrasound on testicular loss in cases of testicular torsion in children
Article1 min read·Published Mar 2024Older

The impact of ultrasound on testicular loss in cases of testicular torsion in children

link.springer.com shows its articles on its own site.

Read the article on link.springer.com ↗

Article · Mar 2024 · 1 min read

In brief

In brief

This retrospective study of 1,579 pediatric patients demonstrates that scrotal ultrasound in suspected testicular torsion cases achieves 95% sensitivity/specificity without increasing orchiectomy rates or causing clinically significant delays to surgery. The findings support ultrasound as a reliable diagnostic tool in acute scrotal presentations.

Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.

Abstract

Purpose

Ultrasound as a diagnostic tool in suspicion of testicular torsion is still highly debated. In this investigation, we aimed to evaluate whether time spent on scrotal ultrasonography had a negative impact on testicular loss.

Methods

Patients’ records containing a scrotal ultrasound and/or surgical procedure codes for testicular interventions on suspicion of testicular torsion were examined. Patients aged 0–15 years admitted during 2015–2019 at Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet were included.

Results

In total, 1566 patients underwent an ultrasound and 142 of these proceeded to surgery while 13 patients proceeded directly to surgery without an ultrasound. The rate of testicular loss with a preceding ultrasound was 23% versus 42% without (p = 0.18). Four cases of testicular torsion were misdiagnosed by ultrasound resulting in a sensitivity of 95.4% and specificity of 95.6%. The mean diagnostic delay from ultrasound examination was 55 ± 39 min, and the mean time from ultrasound to surgery was at 169 ± 76 min versus 171 ± 72 min without ultrasound.

Conclusion

In a clinical setting, ultrasound provided a reliable tool for the diagnosis of testicular torsion and did not seem to increase the orchiectomy rate.

Read it at the source ↗

Try
Intelligent Search· scoped to this article · not medical adviceSearch the whole library →