{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03302611367127496, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007680491551459293, 'mean_word_length': 5.6479591836734695, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is transrectal ultrasonography a reliable diagnostic approach in ejaculatory duct sub-obstruction?

We studied the diagnostic predictive power of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) coupled with semen volume in cases of distal seminal tract sub-obstruction. As a gold standard for diagnosis we used seminal tract washout (STW). Non-azoospermic subjects (n = 112) were submitted to transrectal ultrasonography because of suspected excretory infertility or other andrological pathologies, before performing STW. STW indicated ejaculatory duct sub-obstruction in 36.6% of the patients. Seminal vesicle enlargement (anterior-posterior diameter > or = 15 mm) and seminal vesicle roundish anechoic areas (stasis) were the ultrasonographic anomalies more often associated with ejaculatory duct sub-obstruction. Stepwise logistic regression (SLR) analysis revealed that the ultrasonographic evidence of stasis was highly diagnostic only in the presence of a low semen volume (< or = 1.5 ml) and that ejaculatory duct sub-obstructions may be present but with no evidence of ultrasonographic anomalies. Therefore, TRUS is a useful approach for the treatment of suspected ejaculatory duct sub-obstruction, but is not a reliable diagnostic tool and, before performing transurethral surgery, STW should be mandatory.