Local anesthesia for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: A meta-analysis

Transrectal Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer: Current Utilization, Integration with mpMRI, HIFU and Other Emerging Applications

Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) has been an invaluable tool in the assessment of prostate size, anatomy and aiding in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis for decades. Emerging techniques warrant an investigation into the efficacy of TRUS, how it compares to new techniques, and options to increase the accuracy of prostate cancer diagnosis. Currently, TRUS is used to guide both transrectal and transperineal biopsy approaches with similar cancer detection rates, but lower rates of infection have been reported with the transperineal approach, while lower rates of urinary retention are often reported with the transrectal approach. Multiparametric MRI has substantial benefits for prostate cancer diagnosis and triage such as lesion location, grading, and can be combined with TRUS to perform fusion biopsies targeting specific lesions. Micro-ultrasound generates higher resolution images that traditional ultrasound and has been shown effective at diagnosing PCa, giving it the potential to become a future standard of care. Finally, high-intensity focused ultrasound focal therapy administered via TRUS has been shown to offer safe and effective short-term oncological control for localized disease with low morbidity, and the precise nature makes it a viable option for salvage and repeat therapy.

The effect of heated lidocaine gel on pain reduction during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a randomized-controlled study

PURPOSE

To determine whether intrarectal local anesthesia (IRLA) with heated lidocaine gel provides pain reduction during transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized-controlled study with 153 participants who underwent TRUS-guided, systematic 12-core prostate biopsy from May 2018 to June 2019. These participants were divided into three test groups. Before prostate biopsy, group A (51 patients) received no local anesthesia, group B (51 patients) received IRLA with 20 mL 2% lidocaine gel stored at room temperature, and group C (51 patients) received IRLA with heated (40 ℃) 20 mL 2% lidocaine gel. Pain was assessed using the 0-10 visual analogue scale (VAS) at three time points: VAS-1: during probe insertion, VAS-2: during biopsy, VAS-3: 30 min after the procedure. Complications during and after the procedure were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean VAS-2 score was significantly lower in group C compared to groups A and B (A, 4.6; B, 4.2; and C, 3.2; p < 0.05). There was no significant difference among the three groups in mean VAS-1 and VAS-3 scores. No significant difference was detected in incidence of complications between the three groups. No allergic reactions to lidocaine gel were observed.

CONCLUSION

IRLA with heated lidocaine gel provides more effective pain control during TRUS-guided prostate biopsy than does conventional IRLA and no local anesthesia, without an increase of complications.

Efficacy of additional periprostatic apex nerve block on pain in each of 12 transrectal prostate core biopsies: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

We identified pain variation according to prostate biopsy sites and compared differences in pain relief according to the site of periprostatic nerve block (PNB).

METHODS

This retrospective study collected data from 312 patients who underwent transrectal prostate biopsies between January 2019 and August 2020. Patients were stratified into two groups according to the site of local anesthesia (base vs. base and apex PNB), with each block achieved with 2.5 cm3 of 2% lidocaine. Pain scores were assessed using the visual analog scale at the following time points: probe insertion, PNB at base, PNB at apex, each of the 12 core biopsy sites, and 15 min after biopsy. The results were analyzed using a linear mixed model.

RESULTS

The average pain scores were significantly higher in the base-only PNB group than were those in the base and apex PNB group (3.88 vs 2.82, p < 0.001). In the base-only PNB group, the pain scores increased from base to apex (p < 0.001), and the pain at each site also gradually increased as the biopsy proceeded (p < 0.001). In contrast, in the base and apex PNB group, there was minor change in pain scores throughout the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The pain scores varied at each site during the prostate biopsy. The provision of a base and apex PNB provided greater pain relief than does base-only PNB during prostate biopsy.

Pelvic Plexus Block Versus Periprostatic Nerve Block for Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Meta-Analysis

Background

To relieve prostate biopsy-related pain, various local anesthetic methods have been used. The best approach was periprostatic nerve block (PNB) in the past decade. Recently, pelvic plexus block (PPB) was employed to ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Compared with the PNB, the PPB may block a more extensive area. Therefore, PPB may be more effective in relieving prostate biopsy-related pain. However, several prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PPB and PNB drew conflicting conclusions, so we compared the difference of pain control between PPB and PNB for prostate biopsy.

Methods

The following databases were retrieved up to October 2020: PubMed, Chinese biomedicine literature database, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Internet databases, Wan fang databases and Google Scholar. Only the RCTs were included. The main outcome measures were Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score and complications. The literature quality and extracted data were evaluated by two authors independently. The software Review Manager (version 5.3) was used to perform the data analysis that comparing the difference of VAS score and complications between PPB and PNB.

Results

After screening, six articles including 336 patients from PPB group and 337 patients from PNB group were performed meta-analysis in this study. The results showed that there were no significant difference of pain control in probe insertion and local anesthetic injection between PPB and PNB, while compared with PNB, patients with PPB experienced less pain during biopsy and 30 min after biopsy, respectively(MD = −0.57, 95% CI: −1.11 to −0.03, Z = 2.06, P = 0.04; MD = −0.21, 95% CI: −0.40 to −0.02, Z = 2.15, P = 0.03). In subgroup analysis, the pooled results showed that PPB was superior to PNB in 12-cores biopsy (pooled MD = −1.16, 95% CI: −1.61 to −0.71, P < 0.00001), and more than 40-ml prostate size, regardless of transrectal or transperineal prostate biopsy. The reported major complications were urinary retention, hematuria, infection and hemospermia. The pooled results showed that there were no obvious difference in complications between PPB group and PNB group.

Conclusions

Overall, this meta-analysis suggests that PPB provides safe and effective pain control of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, and PPB is superior to PNB. In future, it also needs more high quality, large samples RCTs to verify.

Effect of Prolonged Duration of Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy of the Prostate and Pre-Procedure Anxiety on Pain in Patients without Anesthesia

Objective

To evaluate factors correlated with pain during prostate biopsy and willingness to undergo transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TR-PBx) again without anesthesia in patients undergoing TR-PBx without anesthesia.

Methods

This retrospective, single-center study evaluated 624 patients who underwent TR-PBx without anesthesia. Based on a nomogram using patient age and prostate volume, 6-12 core biopsy samples were allocated. Anxiety was evaluated using the Faces Anxiety Scale before the TR-PBx. Pain was evaluated using the Faces Pain Scale at each puncture and immediately after confirmation of cessation of bleeding from the rectum after the transrectal probe was pulled out. The question "If this operation must be repeated, would you agree to undergo it again under same conditions?" was asked after the procedure was completed. The change in pain at each puncture and factors correlated with post-procedural pain were calculated using multiple regression analysis, and factors predicting an answer of "yes" to the question using binary logistic analysis were evaluated.

Results

Scores on the Faces Pain Scale significantly increased from the first core sample to last as the number of samples increased. However, the number of samples did not show significant correlation with pain evaluated after the procedure was complete. Time during the biopsy and the anxiety score had a significant correlation with the pain scale score for the completed procedure. Short duration of TR-biopsy and a low anxiety score predicted a reply of "Yes" to the question.

Conclusion

A long operative time during the TR-PBx procedure and strong pre-procedure anxiety can increase pain for patients undergoing the procedure without anesthesia and cause patients to be unwilling to undergo TR-PBx again without anesthesia.

Effects of Hand Holding on Anxiety and Pain During Prostate Biopsies: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Effective pain management is limited for patients during prostate biopsy (PBx). Touch support, such as hand holding, has stress-buffering benefits and effective analgesic effects. We conducted a prospective, single-center randomized clinical trial to assess whether hand holding can reduce patient anxiety, pain, and dissatisfaction during PBx.

METHODS

Between April 2020 and October 2020, 120 male patients were randomized into three groups: a hand holding with relatives (HR) group, a hand holding with strangers (HS) group and a control group. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for self-assessments of pain and satisfaction. Anxiety levels were quantified according to the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Hemodynamic changes were also measured.

RESULTS

The degree of pain and anxiety in the hand-holding groups was significantly better than that in the control group (P<0.001), and the patients were more willing to undergo repeat PBx (P=0.017). The anxiety levels in the HR group were significantly lower than those in the HS group (P=0.019). During PBx, the changes in systolic blood pressure and heart rate in the hand-holding groups were more stable than those in the control group (P<0.01), and the fluctuations in heart rate in the HR group were smaller than those in the HS group (P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Hand holding, especially with relatives, can promote incremental reductions in anxiety, pain and dissatisfaction in patients during PBx. Hence, we recommend hand holding with relatives as an effective adjunct during PBx.

Efficacy and safety of three different analgesic methods for patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests that additional analgesic regimens to periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) anesthesia provide substantial pain relief during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. In this regard, we investigated the efficacy and safety of tramadol alone or in combination with parecoxib as adjunct regimens to PPNB anesthesia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 51 participants were randomly allocated into three study groups: Group 1 received PPNB anesthesia, Group 2 received tramadol and PPNB anesthesia, whereas Group 3 received both tramadol and parecoxib as adjunct regimens to PPNB anesthesia. The pain was evaluated at three different time points during biopsy: at the time of probe insertion (NRS1), at the time of PPNB anesthesia (NRS2), and at the time of the actual biopsy itself (NRS3), using a numeric rating scale (NRS) of pain. Safety was evaluated by the occurrence of complications and adverse effects.

RESULTS

The mean NRS1 score was statistically significantly different in Groups 2 and 3 than in Group 1 (2.4 ± 1.3 and 1.1 ± 1.2 vs. 4.5 ± 1.8; p <0.0167). We found a statistically significant difference regarding NRS 2 score in Groups 2 and 3 than in Group 1 (2.6 ± 1.4 and 1.1 ± 1.3 vs. 4.1 ± 1.3; p <0.0167). The mean NRS1 and NRS2 scores were found to be statistically significantly different in Group 3 than in Group 2 (1.1 ± 1.2 vs. 2.4 ± 1.3 as well as 1.1 ± 1.3 vs. 2.6 ± 1.4; p <0.0167). Also, a statistically significant difference was found between Groups 2 and 3 regarding hematuria episodes [0 (0.0) vs. 5 (29.4); p <0.0167].

CONCLUSION

Tramadol as an adjunct regimen to PPNB anesthesia is a safe and straightforward technique that provides a significant analgesic effect. The effectiveness is even higher when tramadol is combined with parecoxib. HIPPOKRATIA 2020, 24(4): 166-172.

Use of Nitrous Oxide in Office-based Urologic Procedures: A Review

Nitrous oxide (N₂O) is underutilized in ambulatory urology. Here, we review available data regarding application, efficacy, and side effect profile of N₂O in ambulatory urologic procedures. Data were available from 11 studies. N₂O has been described in the setting of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies, flexible cystoscopy, ureteral stent placement, and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in adult patients and catheterization in children. Studies showed significant improvements in peri-procedural pain and anxiety relative to alternative (or none) forms of analgesia. Adverse effects were rare and self-limited. More widespread use of N₂O may result in cost savings and better patient tolerance with outpatient procedures.

Current techniques of prostate biopsy: an update from past to present

Knowing the demerits of the transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy has led to a shift in the general techniques and technology of the prostate biopsy. In addition, the advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sensitivity and the evidence from the PROMIS trial about its ability to detect clinically significant tumours encourage urologists and industry to implement MRI-guided targeted biopsy. However, the science is still looking how to improve safety and increase its cancer detection rate (CDR).

The therapeutic effect of pelvic floor muscle exercise on urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis

Pelvic floor muscle exercise (PFME) is the most common conservative management for urinary incontinence (UI) after radical prostatectomy (RP). However, whether the PFME guided by a therapist (G-PFME) can contribute to the recovery of urinary continence for patients after RP is still controversial. We performed this meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness of G-PFME on UI after RP and to explore whether the additional preoperative G-PFME is superior to postoperative G-PFME alone. Literature search was conducted on Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed, to obtain all relevant randomized controlled trials published before March 1, 2018. Outcome data were pooled and analyzed with Review Manager 5.3 to compare the continence rates of G-PFME with control and to compare additional preoperative G-PFME with postoperative G-PFME. Twenty-two articles with 2647 patients were included. The continence rates of G-PFME were all superior to control at different follow-up time points, with the odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 2.79 (1.53–5.07), 2.80 (1.87–4.19), 2.93 (1.19–7.22), 4.11 (2.24–7.55), and 2.41 (1.33–4.36) at 1 month, 3 months, 4 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery, respectively. However, there was no difference between additional preoperative G-PFME and postoperative G-PFME, with the OR (95% CI) of 1.70 (0.56–5.11) and 1.35 (0.41–4.40) at 1 month and 3 months after RP, respectively. G-PFME could improve the recovery of urinary continence at both early and long-term stages. Starting the PFME preoperatively might not produce extra benefits for patients at early stage, compared with postoperative PFME.

Patient-reported pain, discomfort, and anxiety during magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy

INTRODUCTION

The addition of targeted prostate biopsy to systemic biopsy impacts patient experience. We examined patient-reported pain, discomfort, anxiety, and tolerability among men undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy in addition to transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy compared to those undergoing systematic biopsy alone.

METHODS

All patients underwent transrectal systematic 14-core biopsies. Patients with regions of interest on MRI underwent additional targeted biopsies. All patients received equivalent periprostatic nerve block. Four single-item, standard, 11-point numerical rating scales evaluating pain, discomfort, anxiety, and tolerability were completed immediately after biopsy. Differences in means were compared using t-tests. Correlation between rated domains was tested using Spearman's correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

Of 273 consecutive patients, 195 (71%) underwent targeted biopsy and 188 (69%) had undergone prior biopsy. In all men, the median score for pain and tolerability was 3, while the median score for discomfort and anxiety was 4. Pain was rated at 7 or above by 15% of patients. Moderate correlation between pain, discomfort, anxiety, and tolerability of repeat biopsy was observed (Spearman's ρ between 0.48 and 0.76). Compared to patients undergoing systematic biopsy alone, men who received both targeted and systematic biopsies reported higher anxiety scores (difference 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-2.0; p=0.004) and discomfort (difference 1.0; 95% CI 0.3-1.7; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing targeted and systematic biopsies report more discomfort and anxiety than patients undergoing systematic biopsies alone. Absolute differences are small, and patients are willing to undergo repeat biopsy if advised. Interventions to reduce biopsy-related anxiety are needed.

Is Pelvic Plexus Block Superior to Periprostatic Nerve Block for Pain Control during Transrectal Ultrasonography-Guided Prostate Biopsy? A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

We evaluated whether pelvic plexus block (PPB) is superior to periprostatic nerve block (PNB) for pain control during transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy (PBx). A prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled study was performed at a single center; 46 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated into two groups: PPB (n = 23) and PNB (n = 23). The visual analogue scale (VAS) was used; pain scores were measured four times: during local anesthesia, probe insertion, sampling procedures, and at 15 min post procedures. No significant differences were observed in VAS scores during local anesthesia (2.30 for PPB vs. 2.65 for PNB, p = 0.537) or during probe insertion (2.83 for PPB vs. 2.39 for PNB, p = 0.569). Similarly, no differences in VAS scores were detected during the sampling procedures (2.83 for PPB vs. 2.87 for PNB, p = 0.867) and at 15 min post procedures (1.39 for PPB vs. 1.26 for PNB, p = 0.631). No major complications were noted in either group. Both PPB and PNB are comparably effective and safe methods for PBx related pain relief, and PPB is not superior to PNB. Local anesthetic method could be selected based on the preference and skill of the operator.

What is the most effective local anesthesia for transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy of the prostate? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 47 randomized clinical trials

We aimed to compare the effectiveness of various local anesthetic methods for controlling prostate biopsy (PBx) related pain using network meta-analysis. Literature searches were performed on PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to March 2018. Forty-seven randomized controlled trials, in which the effectiveness of PBx-related pain was investigated using a visual analogue scale after various local anesthetic methods, were included. The local anesthetic methods included intraprostatic local anesthesia (IPLA), intrarectal local anesthesia (IRLA), intravenous sedation (IVS), periprostatic nerve block (PNB), pelvic plexus block (PPB), and spinal anesthesia (SPA). Eight pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses with 21 comparisons were performed. All modalities, except single use of IPLA and IRLA, were more effective than placebo. Our results demonstrate that PNB + IVS (rank 1) and SPA (rank 2) were the most effective methods for pain control. The followings are in order of PPB + IRLA, PNB + IPLA, PPB, PNB + IRLA, IVS, and PNB. In conclusion, the most effective way to alleviate PBx-related pain appears to be PNB + IVS and SPA. However, a potential increase in medical cost and additional risk of morbidities should be considered. In the current outpatient setting, PPB + IRLA, PNB + IPLA, PPB, PNB + IRLA, and PNB methods are potentially more acceptable options.

A randomized controlled comparison between periprostatic nerve block and pelvic plexus block at the base and apex of 14-core prostate biopsies

PURPOSE

To compare the pain control efficacies of the pelvic plexus block (PPB), periprostatic nerve block (PNB), and controls during a 14-core basal and apical core prostate biopsy.

METHODS

This randomized controlled study, performed between January 2015 and January 2016, included patients with an abnormal serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA > 3 ng/mL) level or a palpable nodule on digital rectal examination. The enrolled patients were randomized into three groups: Group 1, intrarectal local anesthesia (IRLA, 10 mL of 2% lidocaine jelly) and PPB with 3.0 mL of 2% lidocaine injected at the bilateral pelvic plexus; Group 2, IRLA and PNB with 3.0 mL of 2% lidocaine injected at both periprostatic nerves; and Group 3, only IRLA. Patients answered the visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire at 6 time points.

RESULTS

This study consisted of 163 patients (Group 1 = 55, Group 2 = 55, and Group 3 = 53). Pain at the apical biopsy location was less in Groups 1 and 2 than in Group 3 (p < 0.001, p < 0.001) and between the two local anesthetic groups (PNB + IRLA vs PPB + IRLA). Group 2 patients reported less pain than Group 1 patients (p = 0.022). Pain during the basal core biopsy was significantly less in Groups 1 and 2 than in Group 3 (p = 0.002, p < 0.001), but there were no significant differences in pain control between the two methods (PNB + IRLA vs PPB + IRLA, p = 0.054) during basal core biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

PNB + IRLA is an effective local anesthetic method for reducing pain when performing apical biopsies compared with PPB + IRLA or IRLA alone.

Assessment of Discomfort and Pain in Patients Undergoing Fusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided vs TRUS-guided Prostate Biopsy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patient pain perception from receiving magnetic resonance imaging fusion-guided prostate biopsy (FBx) in addition to transrectal ultrasound-guided template biopsy (TBx) vs pain from standard TBx alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing FBx + TBx or TBx alone from April 2016 to February 2017 completed a validated pain survey after biopsy. Responses were graded from 0 to 10 (0: no pain or willing to return for repeat procedure; 10: excruciating pain or not willing to return for repeat procedure if necessary). Procedures were performed by a single urologist with a 1% lidocaine periprostatic nerve block. Pain scores between groups were compared via Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

A total of 170 patients were included, with 96 FBx + TBx and 74 TBx. For FBX + TBx and TBx, mean age was 68.6 (±9.7) and 66.1 (±8.3) (P = .08), and median number of cores was 14.5 (8-22) and 12 (6-14) (P < .001), respectively. Both groups had mild pain from the procedure overall (median pain score 3 [range 0-9]), the probe insertion (2 [0-8]), and the biopsies themselves (3 [1-10]). If necessary, both groups were very willing to come back for the same procedure again (1 [0-10]).

CONCLUSION

Patients reported no difference in pain or discomfort with FBx + TBx relative to TBx alone. Both procedures were mildly painful with patients very willing to return for repeat biopsy if necessary. Patients' pain experience should not influence whether additional FBx is performed.

[Prophylaxis of infectious complications following prostate biopsy]

Different strategies have been developed to reduce infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Various technical aspects like number of biopsies, needle size, route of biopsy, periprostatic nerve blockade, rectal preparation by enema, or disinfection with povidone-iodine have to be discussed. Regarding antibiotic therapy, choosing the optimal antibiotic, the duration of prophylaxis, combination therapy, and rectal swab-based antimicrobial therapy are of major interest. The current review gives answers to the different aspects.