Aims: To investigate the relation between the findings of physical examination and ultrasonography and to evaluate whether venous diameter (VD) and retrograde flow volume (RFV) have any additional benefit to the diagnosis of suspected low-grade varicoceles. Methods: Five hundred and fifty-two patients who applied to our outpatient clinic due to infertility were assessed by physical examination (PE) and B-mode and color Doppler ultrasonography (CDUS). The correlation of VD and RFV with clinical grade and with each other was investigated in cases diagnosed as unilateral left varicocele. Results: Unilateral left varicocele was detected in 184 (33.3%) of 552 patients: mean VD of the subjects was 3.17 ± 1.02 mm and mean RFV in 160 patients with a reflux was 24.01 ± 13.76 ml/min. There was a correlation of clinical grade both with VD and RFV (r = 0.669, p < 0.001 and r = 0.603, p < 0.001, respectively). Considering VD and RFV, there was a significant difference between grade (G)1–G2 and G2–G3 (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively) except between subclinic-G1 varicocele groups (p = 0.626, p = 0.529, respectively). The best cut-off point predicting the palpable varicocele on physical examination was 3.1 mm (sensitivity 58.2%) for VD and 14.5 ml/min (sensitivity 83.8%) for RFV. Conclusions: Measurement of RFV is more sensitive than that of VD in predicting palpable varicocele. However, neither of them seem to have any additional benefit to PE in clarifying the diagnosis of suspected low-grade varicoceles.

Keywords:
Color Doppler, Ultrasonography, Physical examination, Infertility, Varicocele
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
2009
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.