title: Color Doppler ultrasound imaging in varicoceles: is the venous diameter sufficient for predicting clinical and subclinical varicocele?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Investigating the diagnostic value of color Doppler ultrasound for defining the varicocele grade according to WHO criteria.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 217 men (129 with clinical varicocele and 88 without clinical varicocele) were investigated by physical examination and color Doppler ultrasound and categorized according to WHO varicocele criteria (0, subclinical, I, II, and III). Diameter and reflux of the largest vein in the pampiniform plexus were measured bilaterally with the patient in the supine position in rest and during the Valsalva maneuver. To assess the possibility of differentiating varicocele grade by venous diameter, optimal cut-point values were determined by receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  With increased varicocele grade, a larger vein diameter was more significant in rest and during Valsalva (in all cases P < 0.05), except between grade I and grade II. Retrograde peak flow velocities were similar in every group (in all cases P > 0.1). Only grade III varicoceles demonstrated significantly increased peak flow values compared with all other grades (P < 0.001). There were no side-related differences when comparing identical varicocele grades (in all cases P > 0.1). Venous diameters above 2.45 mm in rest (sensitivity 84%, specificity 81%) or 2.95 mm during Valsalva (sensitivity 84%, specificity 84%) predicted the presence of a clinical varicocele.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our findings support the hypothesis that clinical varicoceles can be predicted with high accuracy based only on the diameter of testicular veins using cut-point values of >2.45 mm in rest or >2.95 mm during Valsalva maneuver in the supine position.
authors: Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg GmbH-Giessen, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Rudolf-Buchheim-Strasse 7, 35385 Giessen, Germany. adrian.pilatz@chiru.med.uni-giessen.de
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Pilatz
authors: B
authors: B
authors: Altinkilic
authors: E
authors: E
authors: Köhler
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Marconi
authors: W
authors: W
authors: Weidner
references: Int J Urol. 2006 Aug;13(8):1073-8
references: 16903932
references: J Urol. 1996 Apr;155(4):1287-90
references: 8632555
references: Fertil Steril. 2006 Jul;86(1):250-2
references: 16764870
references: Eur J Radiol. 2003 Sep;47(3):251-6
references: 12927671
references: World J Urol. 2004 Nov;22(5):378-81
references: 15322805
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983 Oct;141(4):775-9
references: 6604430
references: J Urol. 2009 Jun;181(6):2717-22; discussion 2723
references: 19375756
references: Hum Reprod. 1996 Jun;11(6):1232-5
references: 8671430
references: World J Urol. 1999 Jun;17(3):151-7
references: 10418088
references: Urol Int. 2003;71(1):83-6
references: 12845267
references: Ann Surg. 1987 Jul;206(1):99-101
references: 3300579
references: J Urol. 1995 Jan;153(1):82-4
references: 7966798
references: Eur Urol. 2011 Mar;59(3):455-61
references: 21196073
references: Fertil Steril. 1992 Jun;57(6):1289-93
references: 1601152
references: Eur Urol. 2006 Aug;50(2):345-50
references: 16542771
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21;(1):CD000479
references: 19160180
references: Int Urol Nephrol. 2003;35(1):115-8
references: 14620299
references: Fertil Steril. 2007 Sep;88(3):639-48
references: 17434508
references: Hum Reprod. 2005 Sep;20(9):2614-9
references: 15932914
references: J Urol. 2006 Nov;176(5):2141-5
references: 17070279