Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy remains a safe method in confirming a prostate cancer diagnosis: a multicentre Australian analysis of infection rates

Comparison of ciprofloxacin versus fosfomycin versus fosfomycin plus trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for preventing infections after transrectal prostate biopsy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate antibiotic prophylaxis in transrectal prostate biopsies due to the recommendation of the European Medicines Agency (EMA): We describe our single center experience switching from ciprofloxacin to fosfomycin trometamol (FMT) alone and to an augmented prophylaxis combining fosfomycin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX).

METHODS

Between 01/2019 and 12/2020 we compared three different regimes. The primary endpoint was the clinical diagnosis of an infection within 4 weeks after biopsy. We enrolled 822 men, 398 (48%) of whom received ciprofloxacin (group-C), 136 (16.5%) received FMT (group-F) and 288 (35%) received the combination of TMP/SMX and FMT (group-BF).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. In total 37/398 (5%) postinterventional infections were detected, of which 13/398 (3%) vs 18/136 (13.2%) vs 6/288 (2.1%) were detected in group-C, group-F and group-BF respectively. The relative risk of infectious complication was 1.3 (CI 0.7-2.6) for group-C vs. group-BF and 2.8 (CI 1.4-5.7) for group-F vs. group-BF respectively.

CONCLUSION

The replacement of ciprofloxacin by fosfomycin alone resulted in a significant increase of postinterventional infections, while the combination of FMT and TMP/SMX had a comparable infection rate to FQ without apparent adverse events. Therefore, this combined regimen of FMT and TMP/SMX is recommended.

Lower Dose of 5 mL of 1% Lidocaine is More Suitable than the Conventional 10 mL for Caudal Block in Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objectives

In Japan, caudal block with 1% lidocaine is commonly used for transrectal prostate biopsy. Although 10 mL of 1% lidocaine is commonly used, the appropriate dosage of 1% lidocaine has not been studied. Our hospital routinely uses two different doses (5 or 10 mL) of 1% lidocaine for caudal block for transrectal prostate biopsy. Herein, we retrospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of both doses of 1% lidocaine.

Methods

This retrospective study included 869 patients who underwent transrectal prostate biopsy with caudal block at our hospital. The amount of 1% lidocaine was determined by the day of the week on which the biopsy was performed, and the patient voluntarily chose the day of the biopsy, unaware of the dose of 1% lidocaine used on that day. Pain, anal sphincter tonus, cancer diagnosis rate, and early complications were compared.

Results

In total, 466 and 403 patients received 5 and 10 mL of 1% lidocaine for a caudal block, respectively. After propensity-score matching for patient characteristics, each group contained 395 patients. The pain score, anal sphincter tonus score, or prostate cancer diagnosis rate were not significantly different between the two groups. However, rectal bleeding was significantly more frequent and severe in the 10-mL than the 5-mL group (p=0.018 and p=0.0036, respectively). The incidence of other complications was not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that 5 mL of 1% lidocaine may be more suitable than 10 mL for caudal block during transrectal prostate biopsy.