A Novel Perineal Nerve Block Approach for Transperineal Prostate Biopsy: An Anatomical Analysis-based Randomized Single-blind Controlled Trial

Clinical value of ultrasound-guided full-needle path anesthesia in transperineal prostate biopsy: An observational study

BACKGROUND

The pain sensation in a transperineal prostate biopsy was obvious. This study explored the clinical value of ultrasound-guided full-needle path anesthesia in transperineal prostate biopsy.

METHODS

Two hundred patients who underwent ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy at our department were randomly divided into 2 groups. The control group received routine local infiltration anesthesia, and the experimental group received ultrasound-guided full-needle path anesthesia. Immediately after biopsy, visual analog scoring was used to evaluate pain during the biopsy process. Seven days postbiopsy, telephone follow-up revealed symptoms, such as hematuria and discomfort during urination. The measured data were expressed as x ± s. The 2 groups were compared using the t test, and the differences were statistically significant (P < .05).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, or prostate volume between the 2 groups, and all patients underwent prostate biopsy. The pain score of visual analog score was (2.55 ± 0.88), urination discomfort was (1.86 ± 0.67) days and hematuria time was (2.87 ± 0.91) days in the experimental group after biopsy. In the control group, the pain score of visual analog scale was (4.32 ± 0.94), the urination discomfort was (2.3 ± 0.77) days, and the hematuria time was (2.85 ± 0.83) days. Pain scores and urination discomfort were compared between the 2 groups (P < .01). Pain and urination discomfort associated with prostate biopsy in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound-guided full needle path anesthesia can alleviate pain sensation in patients undergoing transperineal prostate biopsy and has high clinical value.

Shifting to transperineal prostate biopsy: A narrative review

To address the limitations and challenges associated with transrectal (TR) biopsy and to present transperineal (TP) biopsy as a viable and potentially safer alternative to TR biopsy. Prostate cancer (PCa) is a significant global health concern. The prevalence of advanced-stage prostate cancer in Asia is higher than that in the United States, emphasizing the need for effective screening and diagnosis methods. The gold standard of diagnosis is a TR biopsy. However, it has limitations due to the risk of infection and potential complications, such as injury to the rectal artery. Efforts have been made to address issues such as false-negative biopsies, under-sampling, and over-sampling through MRI-guided biopsies. However, the TR approach makes it difficult to access the apical and anterior regions of the prostate. TP biopsy has emerged as an alternative to address the limitations of TR biopsy. Nevertheless, a TP biopsy is a painful procedure, requiring the use of general anesthesia and expensive equipment. As a result, it has been perceived as costly and time-consuming. In addition, it requires a steep learning curve. The introduction of local anesthesia such as pudendal nerve block and the adoption of freehand techniques have contributed to the feasibility of performing TP biopsy. Recent research indicates that freehand TP biopsy can yield comparable diagnostic results to template-guided approaches. The diagnostic performance, cancer detection rates, and complication rates of TP biopsy have demonstrated its potential as a safe and effective diagnostic method.

Evolution of anxiety management in prostate biopsy under local anesthesia: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION AND METHODS

Prostate biopsy (PB) is an essential step in the diagnosis and active surveillance of prostate cancer (PCa). Transperineal PB (TP-PB) is now the recommended approach and is mostly conducted under local anesthesia. However, this procedure can potentially cause anxiety for patients, given the oncological context and the fear of peri-procedural pain and complications. The objective of this narrative review is to summarize the currently available tools for the management of peri-interventional anxiety during TP-PB, with a particular emphasis on the potential role of virtual reality (VR) in this setting.

RESULTS

In TP-PB, preoperative anxiety can lead to increased pain perception, longer procedure time, and decreased patient satisfaction. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches have been explored to reduce anxiety, such as premedication, deep sedation, education, relaxation techniques, hypnosis, and music therapy, albeit with mixed results. VR has recently emerged in the technological armamentarium for managing pain and anxiety, and the efficiency of this technology has been evaluated in various medical fields, including pediatrics, gastroenterology, urology, gynecology, and psychiatry.

CONCLUSION

Despite the paucity of available data, VR appears to be a safe and effective technique in reducing anxiety in many procedures, even in frail patients. No studies have evaluated the role of VR in TP-PB. Future research should thus explore the optimal way to implement VR technology and any potential benefits for TP-PB patients.

Association of biopsy core number and location with pain in patients undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia: a secondary analysis of the APROPOS trial

BACKGROUND

APROPOS was a multicentre, randomized, blinded trial focus on investigating the perineal nerve block versus the periprostatic block in pain control for men undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy. In the analysis reported here, the authors aimed to evaluate the association of biopsy core count and location with pain outcomes in patients undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy under local anesthesia.

METHODS

APROPOS was performed at six medical centers in China. Patients with suspected prostate cancer were randomized to receive either a perineal nerve block or a periprostatic block (1:1), followed by a transperineal prostate biopsy. The secondary analysis outcomes were the worst pain experienced during the prostate biopsy and postbiopsy pain at 1,6, and 24 h.

RESULTS

Between 12 August 2020 and 20 July 2022, a total of 192 patients were randomized in the original trial, and 188 were involved in this analysis, with 94 patients per group. Participants had a median (IQR) age of 68 (63-72) and a median (IQR) prostate volume of 42.51 (30.04-62.84). The patient population had a median (IQR) number of biopsy cores of 15 (12-17.50), and 26.06% of patients had a biopsy cores count of more than 15. After adjusting the baseline characteristics, the number of biopsy cores was associated with the worst pain during the biopsy procedure in both the perineal nerve block group ( β 0.19, 95% CI: 0.12-0.26, P <0.001) and the periprostatic block group ( β 0.16, 95% CI: 0.07-0.24, P <0.001). A similar association was also evident for the postbiopsy pain at 1, 6, and 24 h. A lesser degree of pain in both groups at any time (r range -0.57 to -0.01 for both groups) was associated with biopsy cores from the peripheral zone of the middle gland, while other locations were associated with a higher degree of pain. In addition, the location of the biopsy core had less of an effect on pain during the biopsy (r range -0.01-0.25 for both groups) than it did on postbiopsy pain (r range -0.57-0.60 for both groups).

CONCLUSIONS

In this secondary analysis of a randomized trial, biopsy core count and location were associated with pain in patients undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy under local anesthesia. These results may be helpful for making clinical decisions about the anesthetic approach for scheduled transperineal prostate biopsies.

A systematic review on the outcomes of local anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the diagnostic ability, complication rate, patient tolerability, and cost of local anaesthetic (LA) transperineal prostate biopsy.

METHODS

Two reviewers searched Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Embase for publications on LA transperineal prostate biopsy up to March 2021. Outcomes of interest included cancer detection rates, complication rates, pain assessments and cost.

RESULTS

A total of 35 publications with 113 944 men were included in this review. The cancer detection rate for LA transperineal prostate biopsy in patients undergoing primary biopsy was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.60; I² = 97) and the clinically significant cancer detection rate (Gleason≥3 + 4) was 37% (95% CI 0.24-0.52; I² = 99%). The rate of infection-related complications in the included studies was 0.15% (95% CI 0.0000-0.0043; I² = 86). The LA transperineal procedures had a low rate of procedural abandonment (26/6954, 0.37%), with the greatest pain scores measured during LA administration. No formal cost analyses on LA transperineal prostate biopsies were identified in the literature. The overall risk of bias in the included studies was high, with considerable study heterogeneity and publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Transperineal prostate biopsy performed under LA is a viable option for centres interested in avoiding the risk of infection associated with transrectal biopsy, and the logistical burden of general anaesthesia. Further investigation into LA transperineal prostate biopsy with comparative studies is warranted for its consideration as the standard in prostate biopsy technique.

Perineal nerve block versus periprostatic block for patients undergoing transperineal prostate biopsy (APROPOS): a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled study

Background

We aimed to investigate perineal nerve block versus periprostatic block in pain control for men undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy.

Methods

In this prospective, randomised, blinded and parallel-group trial, men in six Chinese hospitals with suspected prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) at the point of local anaesthesia to receive a perineal nerve block or periprostatic block and followed by a transperineal prostate biopsy. Centres used their usual biopsy procedure. Operators who performed anaesthesia were trained in both techniques before the trial and were masked to the randomised allocation until the time of anaesthesia and were not involved in the subsequent biopsy procedure and any assessment or analysis. Other investigators and the patients were masked until trial completion. The primary outcome was the level of the worst pain experienced during the prostate biopsy procedure. Secondary outcomes included pain (post-biopsy at 1, 6 and 24 h), changes in blood pressure, heart rate and breathing rate during the biopsy procedure, external manifestations of pain during biopsy, anaesthesia satisfaction, the detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501055.

Findings

Between August 13, 2020, and July 20, 2022, 192 men were randomly assigned to perineal nerve block or periprostatic block, 96 per study group. Perineal nerve block was superior for the relief of pain during the biopsy procedure (mean 2.80 for perineal nerve block and 3.98 for periprostatic block; adjusted difference in means -1.17, P < 0.001). Although the perineal nerve block had a lower mean pain score at 1 h post-biopsy compared with the periprostatic block (0.23 vs 0.43, P = 0.042), they were equivalent at 6 h (0.16 vs 0.25, P = 0.389) and 24 h (0.10 vs 0.26, P = 0.184) respectively. For the change in vital signs during biopsy procedure, perineal nerve block was significantly superior to periprostatic block in terms of maximum value of systolic blood pressure, maximum value of mean arterial pressure and maximum value of heart rate. There are no statistical differences in average value of systolic blood pressure, average value of mean, average value of heart rate, diastolic blood pressure and breathing rate. Perineal nerve block was also superior to periprostatic block in external manifestations of pain (1.88 vs 3.00, P < 0.001) and anaesthesia satisfaction (8.93 vs 11.90, P < 0.001). Equivalence was shown for the detection rate of PCa (31.25% for perineal nerve block and 29.17% for periprostatic block, P = 0.753) or csPCa (23.96% for perineal nerve block and 20.83% for periprostatic block, P = 0.604). 33 (34.8%) of 96 patients in the perineal nerve block group and 40 (41.67%) of 96 patients in the periprostatic block group had at least one complication.

Interpretation

Perineal nerve block was superior to periprostatic block in pain control for men undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy.

Funding

Grant 2019YFC0119100 from the National Key Research and Development Program of China.

Should Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Be the Standard of Care?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of transperineal prostate biopsy (TP-bx) to evaluate its potential role as the standard of care for prostate biopsy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have suggested no difference in prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate between TP-bx and transrectal biopsy (TR-bx) but have suggested potentially increased detection of anterior prostate tumors. Advances in anesthetic technique have obviated the need for sedation thus allowing TP-bx to become an office-based procedure, which in turn can decrease the overall cost of TP-bx. Furthermore, given the low rate of infectious complications after TP-bx, some have foregone peri-procedural antibiotics without a change in the rate of infectious complications. Recent procedural advances have made TP-bx a tolerable, office-based procedure. Given the similar diagnostic performance and the benefits for the patient and community, TP-bx should become the standard of care for prostate biopsy for most patients. Future efforts should address the barriers for more universal adoption.

Establishment of an Individualized Predictive Model to Reduce the Core Number for Systematic Prostate Biopsy: A Dual Center Study Based on Stratification of the Disease Risk Score

Purpose

To establish an individualized prostate biopsy model that reduces unnecessary biopsy cores based on multiparameter MRI (mpMRI).

Materials and Methods

This retrospective, non-inferiority dual-center study retrospectively included 609 patients from the Changhai Hospital from June 2017 to November 2020 and 431 patients from the Fujian Union Hospital between 2014 and 2019. Clinical, radiological, and pathological data were analyzed. Data from the Changhai Hospital were used for modeling by calculating the patients’ disease risk scores. Data from the Fujian Union Hospital were used for external verification.

Results

Based on the data of 609 patients from the Changhai Hospital, we divided the patients evenly into five layers according to the disease risk score. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was analyzed. Twelve-core systemic biopsy (12-SBx) was used as the reference standard. The SBx cores from each layer were reduced to 9, 6, 5, 4, and 4. The data of 279 patients with benign pathological results from the Fujian Union Hospital were incorporated into the model. No patients were in the first layer. The accuracies of the models for the other layers were 88, 96.43, 94.87, and 94.59%. The accuracy of each layer would be increased to 96, 100, 100, and 97.30% if the diagnosis of non-clinically significant prostate cancer was excluded.

Conclusions

In this study, we established an individualized biopsy model using data from a dual center. The results showed great accuracy of the model, indicating its future clinical application.

Developments in optimizing transperineal prostate biopsy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate biopsy is a very commonly performed office procedure leading to the diagnosis of the most prevalent solid-organ malignancy in American men. Although the transrectal technique for prostate biopsy remains the gold standard, there is increasing interest in the transperineal approach as it offers a clean, percutaneous approach that significantly decreases the risk for infection. In this review, we discuss emerging developments in transperineal prostate biopsy that may optimize the way biopsies are performed in clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Similarly, to transrectal biopsy, the transperineal approach also allows for the performance of systematic and MRI-targeted biopsy cores. As transperineal biopsy obviates the translocation of rectal bacteria to the prostate or bloodstream, in contrast to transrectal biopsy, it is feasible to forgo peri-procedural antibiotics in accordance with professional guidelines. This may attenuate antimicrobial resistance that may be associated with augmented prophylaxis. In addition, although transperineal biopsy may be traditionally performed under general anesthesia using a template grid, it may also be performed freehand under local anesthesia or sedation. Avoiding prophylactic antibiotics and general anesthesia as well as reducing infections/hospitalizations for transperineal biopsy scaled nationally will likely result in significant healthcare savings.

SUMMARY

Transperineal biopsy with combined systematic and MRI-targeted cores, offers several advantages over conventional transrectal biopsy. Transperineal biopsy under local anesthesia and without periprocedural antibiotic is emerging as a promising method for prostate cancer diagnosis and surveillance.

Anaesthesia in PROstate Biopsy Pain Obstruction Study: A Study Protocol for a Multicentre Randomised Controlled Study Evaluating the Efficacy of Perineal Nerve Block in Controlling Pain in Patients Undergoing Transperineal Prostate Biopsy

Introduction: Transperineal prostate biopsy is as effective as the transrectal biopsy in detecting prostate cancer and has a lower risk of infection. However, concerning the procedural pain of the transperineal route, a higher level of anaesthesia is needed, which prevents this approach from being widely used. Although several methods of local anaesthesia to relieve pain during transperineal biopsy have been described, few well-designed trials have been conducted to assess the efficacy of local anaesthesia.

Methods: This is a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled study in men suspected of having prostate cancer and planning to undergo transperineal prostate biopsy. The aim of this trial is to determine whether the perineal nerve block and periprostatic block relieve pain to different extents in men undergoing transperineal biopsy. The main inclusion criteria are men aged between 18 and 80 years old, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 4–20 ng/ml, or/and suspicious rectal examination findings. A sample size of 190 participants, accounting for a 10% loss, is required. All participants will be randomly allocated at a ratio of 1:1 to the perineal nerve block (n = 95) and periprostatic block groups (n = 95). The primary outcome will be the level of the worst pain experienced during the transperineal prostate biopsy procedure, which will be measured by a numerical rating scale (NRS). The key secondary outcomes will include the pain severity score at 1, 6, and 24 h after prostate biopsy.

Results: The primary outcome is the level of the worst pain experienced during the prostate biopsy procedure. The main secondary outcomes are as follows: (1) Post-biopsy pain severity score at 1, 6, and 24 h after the prostate biopsy; (2) Changes in blood pressure, heart rate and breathing rate during the biopsy procedure; (3) External manifestations of pain during biopsy; (4) Anaesthesia satisfaction; (5) The detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer and any prostate cancer.

Conclusion: Anaesthesia in PROstate biopsy Pain Obstruction Study (APROPOS) is randomised controlled trial aiming to determine the efficacy of the perineal nerve block in controlling pain in patients undergoing prostate biopsy via the transperineal approach.

Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04501055.

"Free-Hand" Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Under Local Anesthesia: Review of the Literature

Background: The recent plethora of reports of "free-hand" transperineal prostate biopsy (fTP-Bx) under local anesthesia (LA) demonstrate that many centers consider this technique to be a safer and possibly more accurate approach to prostate biopsy in the clinic setting. Materials and Methods: The literature was searched for fTP-Bx, and summary tables were compiled. Studies on the costs of postprostate biopsy sepsis were also researched. Results: The search found 11,999 cases of fTP-Bx under LA with and without sedation over 29 mutually exclusive studies. Pooled averages calculated for age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, PSA density, and cores sampled were 67.3 years, 10.4 ng/mL, 47.7 mL, 0.24 ng/mL/cc, and 15.3 cores, respectively. Detection of overall prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant (Gleason score ≥7) prostate cancer (csPCa) averaged 45.5% (3796/8338) and 25.1% (1141/4541), respectively. After subgrouping the studies by biopsy technique, studies that used MRI/ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy in some or all biopsy cases averaged an overall PCa and csPCa detection rate of 50.0% (741/1483) (p < 0.0001) and 42.8% (635/1483) (p < 0.0001), respectively. Visual analog scale pain ratings and procedure times averaged 3.17 and 13.1 minutes, respectively. Averages for complications of sepsis and acute urinary retention were 0.0% (0/7396) and 2.1% (120/5693), respectively. A total of 10.2% (1055/10,334) of cases received no antibiotic prophylaxis. If fTP-Bx under LA replaced transrectal prostate biopsy (TR-Bx) in the United States, the estimated annual savings would be $341,676,800-$752,540,000 through the virtual elimination of admissions for postbiopsy sepsis. Conclusions: Many centers around the world have adopted fTP-Bx because it virtually eliminates sepsis, may improve detection rates of csPCa and can be easily integrated into a normal clinic workflow using only LA. If all urologists in the United States abandoned TR-Bx for fTP-Bx, the potential savings in health care costs of complications would be significant.