HOW TO DECREASE PAIN DURING TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY: A LOOK AT THE LITERATURE

Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsy

Objectives

Fusion prostate biopsy (FPB) has recently emerged as a popular and successful biopsy technique on diagnosis of prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the pain levels in TRUS-guided standard 12-core prostate biopsy (SPB) and MpMRI-guided FPB.

Materials and Methods

Patients detected with a PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) ≥3 lesion on MpMRI underwent MpMRI-guided FPB (Group I) and the patients who had no suspected lesions or had a PI-RADS <3 lesion on MpMRI underwent TRUS-guided SPB (Group II). Pain assessment was performed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) five minutes after the procedure. Following the procedure, the patients were asked to indicate the most painful biopsy step among the three steps.

Results

252 patients were included in this study (Group I=159, Group II=93). The mean number of cores and the malignancy detection rate were significantly higher in Group I compared to Group II (p <0.001, p=0.043, respectively). No significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to VAS scores (p=0.070). The most painful part of the whole procedure was revealed to be the insertion of the probe into the rectum. However, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to the most painful biopsy step (p=0.140).

Conclusion

FPB, with a relatively higher cancer detection rate, leads to the same pain level as SPB although it increases the number of biopsy cores and involves a more complex procedure compared to SPB. Further prospective studies with larger patient series are needed to substantiate our findings.

Risk factors associated with pain in fusion prostate biopsy

Background

Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)–guided fusion prostate biopsy is an emerging technique in the diagnosis of prostate cancer and provides extensive information on the prebiopsy anatomy of the prostate, anus, and rectum. We aimed to investigate the clinical and anatomical risk factors aggravating the pain experienced by patients undergoing mpMRI-guided fusion prostate biopsy.

Methods

The prospective study included 319 patients aged 45–75 years who had a prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/ml and a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System ≥3 lesion and underwent combined biopsy (targeted biopsy + 12-core standard prostate biopsy) under local anesthesia (intrarectal lidocaine gel + periprostatic nerve block). Immediately after the biopsy procedure, pain assessment was achieved using Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The relationship between the VAS and 13 clinical parameters was evaluated using ordinal logistic regression analysis.

Results

The 319 patients had a mean age of 62.39 ± 6.98 years and a median prostate-specific antigen level of 7.20 (range, 5.20–8.50) ng/ml. The VAS was found to be correlated with 4 of 13 parameters, including (i) a shorter prostate–anus surface distance (cutoff value, 55.5 mm), (ii) a narrower anorectal angle (cutoff value, 106.5°), (iii) a larger total prostate volume (cutoff, 61.6 mm³), and (iv) having no history of prior biopsy (biopsy-naive patients).

Conclusion

Anatomical measurements that can be achieved by using mpMRI images (TPV, PASD and ARA) may be useful in the identification of patients at an increased risk of pain during biopsy and also in taking analgesic precautions in such patients.

External validation of Cormio nomogram for predicting all prostate cancers and clinically significant prostate cancers

PURPOSE

Recently, the Cormio et al. nomogram has been developed to predict prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa using benign prostatic obstruction parameters. The aim of the present study was to externally validate the nomogram in a multicentric cohort.

METHODS

Between 2013 and 2019, patients scheduled for ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy were prospectively enrolled at 11 Italian institutions. Demographic, clinical and histological data were collected and analysed. Discrimination and calibration of Cormio nomogram were assessed with the receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve and calibration plots. The clinical net benefit of the nomogram was assessed with decision curve analysis. Clinically significant PCa was defined as ISUP grade group > 1.

RESULTS

After accounting for inclusion criteria, 1377 patients were analysed. 816/1377 (59%) had cancer at final pathology (574/816, 70%, clinically significant PCa). Multivariable analysis showed age, prostate volume, DRE and post-voided residual volume as independent predictors of any PCa. Discrimination of the nomogram for cancer was 0.70 on ROC analysis. Calibration of the nomogram was excellent (p = 0.94) and the nomogram presented a net benefit in the 40-80% range of probabilities. Multivariable analysis for predictors of clinically significant PCa found age, PSA, prostate volume and DRE as independent variables. Discrimination of the nomogram was 0.73. Calibration was poor (p = 0.001) and the nomogram presented a net benefit in the 25-75% range of probabilities.

CONCLUSION

We confirmed that the Cormio nomogram can be used to predict the risk of PCa in patients at increased risk. Implementation of the nomogram in clinical practice will better define its role in the patient's counselling before prostate biopsy.

Efficacy and safety of a combined anesthetic technique for transrectal prostate biopsy: a single center, prospective, randomized study

Introduction

A transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosis of prostatic neoplasia. This exam is associated with pain and discomfort, and numerous methods of analgesia during this procedure have been described. There is still no consensus among urologists about the pain control technique that should be performed, even though the periprostatic basal nerve block is the most studied technique. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the benefit of adding local periapical prostatic anesthesia to the traditional periprostatic basal nerve block during TRUS biopsy.

Material and methods

A total of 70 patients with indication for TRUS biopsy were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized into 2 groups. Group 1 received a periprostatic basal nerve block. Group 2 received both periapical prostatic and periprostatic basal nerve blocks . The pain experienced during different moments of the procedure (introduction of the probe, anesthesia administration, removal of cores and 30 minutes after biopsy) was assessed using visual analog scales of one to ten. The rate of complications at 30 days post-biopsy was also assessed.

Results

The difference in pain during the distinct moments of the TRUS biopsy was not significant between the two groups. There were no significant differences concerning age, level of total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate volume in both groups. There were also no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the occurrence of complications and pathological findings.

Conclusions

The administration of concurent periprostatic basal and periapical nerve blocks has no significant benefits as compared to a periprostatic basal nerve block alone.

A novel method for pain control: infiltration free local anesthesia technique (INFLATE) for transrectal prostatic biopsy using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)

PURPOSE

To describe a novel method for the control of pain during prostate biopsies, infiltration free local anesthesia technique (INFLATE) for transrectal prostatic biopsies with no further needle insertions for local anesthetic infiltration.

METHODS

A total of 138 men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and/or abnormal digital rectal examination findings were included in the study. Of the patients, 73 were assigned to the INFLATE group and 65 to the TRUS-PNB group. Demographic data, PSA levels, findings of digital rectal examinations, and multiparametric prostatic magnetic resonance imaging were recorded. In the INFLATE group, a two-channel TENStem eco basic device with two electrodes was used for pain control during the biopsy. For the TRUS-PNB group, 60 mg lidocaine gel was given intrarectally in addition to infiltration of a prilocaine and bupivacaine mixture (5 mL of 2% prilocaine + 5 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine). Pain perception was assessed using a linear numeric rating scale.

RESULTS

The mean ages, BMIs, prostate volumes, and PSA levels were similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). Of the 56 participants with prostate adenocarcinoma, 28 were in the INFLATE group, and 28 were in the TRUS-PNB group with a 40.6% overall cancer detection rate. The mean preoperative and post-operative pain scores during probe insertion, biopsy and post-biopsy were similar between the groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results of the study confirmed that INFLATE for transrectal prostate biopsy using a TENS device could safely and effectively be used for pain control with the advantage of two fewer needle attempts with no increase in significant complications.

Prospective comparison of the novel visual prostate symptom score (VPSS) versus the international prostate symptom score (IPSS), and assessment of patient pain perception with regard to transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy

Objective:

To compare the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and novel Visual Prostate Symptom Score (VPSS) in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), to correlate scores with uroflowmetry and prostate volume and assess patient perceptions regarding pain prior to, and after prostate biopsy.

Materials and Methods:

Patients with LUTS who had an indication for transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy were included. Patients completed the IPSS-, VPSS- and prostate biopsy pain assessment questionnaires. Assessment included uroflowmetry, post- void residual volume and prostate volume (measured with TRUS).

Results:

One hundred men were included. There were statistically significant correlations between the VPSS score and IPSS score (correlation coefficient (r) = 0.802); VPSS and Qmax (r = −0.311); VPSS and. Qave (r = −0.344); prostate volume with VPSS (r = 0.194) and Qmax (r = −0.260). The VPSS was quicker to complete than the IPSS (mean 100 vs. 165 seconds). The mean anticipated pain score before biopsy was 2.8 (range 0-6), and after biopsy (experienced pain) it was 1.8 (range 0-5). The pain during biopsy was less than expected in 67% of patients.

Conclusion:

In men with LUTS scheduled to undergo prostate biopsy, the VPSS score correlated positively with the IPSS score. Men with limited education take less time to complete the VPSS. Patient's perception of expected pain or discomfort during TRUS-guided prostate biopsy was significantly higher than the pain actually experienced during biopsy. Men with lower education level had significantly higher expectation of pain prior to biopsy, but similar pain during biopsy.

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.

Cost and efficacy comparison of five prostate biopsy modalities: a platform for integrating cost into novel-platform comparative research

BACKGROUND

The cornerstone of prostate cancer diagnosis remains the transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-BX), which most frequently occurs in the office setting under local anesthesia. However, there are now other techniques of prostate biopsy aimed at improving outcomes such as patient comfort, significant cancer detection, and infectious complications. The purpose of the present study is to compare the cost and efficacy outcomes of five different approaches.

METHODS

We compared the comprehensive costs of a random sample size of 20-30 cases from each of the following: (1) local anesthesia TRUS-BX (reference), (2) sedation TRUS-BX, (3) general anesthesia transperineal template biopsy (TP), (4) sedation MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy (FB), and (5) sedation in-bore MRI biopsy (IB-MRI). Cost categories included pre-procedure, anesthesia pharmacy and recovery, and the technical/professional costs from urology, radiology, and pathology services. For procedure outcomes, we compared the larger cohorts of TRUS-BX, TP, and FB in terms of indication, cancer yield, and downstream decision impact.

RESULTS

Compared with standard TRUS-BX, the total costs of sedation TRUS-BX, TP, FB, and IB-MRI increased significantly ×1.9 (90%), ×2.5 (153%), ×2.5 (150%), and ×2.2 (125%), respectively (p < 0.001). Although there was no statistical difference between the total costs of TP, FB, and IB-MRI, these costs were significantly higher than those of TRUS-BX under either local anesthesia or sedation (p < 0.05). The cost of TRUS-BX under sedation was significantly higher than that of TRUS-BX under local anesthesia (p < 0.001). Compared to TRUS-BX, more significant cancers were detected in FB (16% vs. 36%) and TP (16% vs. 34%) groups (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with standard TRUS-BX, the additions of imaging, sedation anesthesia, and transperineal template increase costs significantly, and can be considered along with known improvements in accuracy and side effects. Ongoing efforts to combine imaging and transperineal biopsy, especially in an outpatient/local anesthesia setting may lead to a higher cost/benefit.

A 50-50% mixture of nitrous oxide-oxygen in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A randomized and prospective clinical trial

Introduction

Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TUSPB) is the standard method of diagnosis for prostate cancer, and although it is well tolerated by some patients, it presents a discomfort rate of 65 to 90%, which may be associated with pain. For convenience, it is agreed that a method of analgesia and sedation is necessary. For this purpose, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of inhalation of a 50–50% N₂O-O₂ gas mixture on pain intensity in these patients.

Material and methods

Randomized, double-blinded clinical trial, conducted at Antônio Pedro University Hospital (Hospital Universitário Antônio Pedro), Niterói, RJ, Brazil, containing two groups of 42 patients: a control (C) group, which received 100% oxygen inhalation, and a nitrous oxide (NO) group, which received inhalation of the 50–50% N₂O-O₂ mixture, self-administered during TUSPB. The pain intensity and degree of satisfaction were evaluated through a visual analogue scale (VAS), as was the frequency of adverse events.

Results

Eighty-four patients were included in the study, with 42 in each group. The mean pain intensity was lower in the NO group than in the C group [2.52 (0–10) vs 5.95 (0–10), p < 0.001], and the degree of satisfaction was higher in the NO group than in the C group (8.14 vs. 4.69, p < 0.001). The adverse effects were somnolence, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, discomfort and euphoria without differences between the groups.

Conclusion

The 50–50% N₂O-O₂ mixture was effective in reducing pain intensity and increasing the degree of satisfaction in TUSPB, with tolerable side effects.

Transperineal vs. transrectal biopsy in MRI targeting

Prostate biopsy is typically performed via either the transrectal or transperineal approach. MRI-targeted biopsy, whether using any of the three options of cognitive fusion, MRI-ultrasound fusion software, or in-bore MRI-guided biopsy, can also be performed via either transrectal or transperineal approaches. As an extension of traditional random prostate biopsy, the transrectal approach is far more commonly used for MRI-targeted biopsy due to its convenience. However, in the context of today’s increasing multi-drug resistance of rectal flora, the transperineal approach is being used more often due to its lack of septic complications. In addition, only a first-generation cephalosporin, not a fluoroquinolone, is required as antibiotic prophylaxis. Evidence shows excellent detection rates of significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and/or systematic transperineal biopsy (TPB). However, there are no head-to-head studies comparing the different MRI-targeted methods within TPB. To provide truly patient-centred care, the biopsy technique using the safest method with the highest detection rate of significant cancer should be used. Depending on healthcare context and hospital resource utilization, MRI-targeted TPB is an excellent option and should be performed wherever available and feasible. Whilst building capacity for TPB in one’s practice, the routine use of rectal culture swabs prior to any transrectal biopsies is strongly encouraged. Independent of biopsy route, the addition of systematic cores needs to be discussed with the patient weighing maximal detection of significant cancer against increased detection of insignificant lesions.

Prospective comparison of the efficacy of caudal versus periprostatic nerve block, both with intrarectal local anesthesia, during transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostatic needle biopsy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of caudal block (CB) versus periprostatic nerve block (PPNB), both with intrarectal local anesthesia (IRLA), in reducing pain during transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostatic biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 532 patients: 266 patients received CB with IRLA and 266 patients PPNB with IRLA. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was applied to prospectively evaluate pain (1) at induction of anesthesia, (2) at insertion of the TRUS probe, (3) at needle penetration to the prostate, and (4) throughout the biopsy procedure. Pain scores were compared to evaluate differences between groups. The secondary endpoint of serious complication rate was also evaluated. As a subanalysis, the pain scores were compared in patients with high body mass index (BMI ≥25 kg/m²).

RESULTS

Overall, the pain score in the PPNB group was significantly lower than in the CB group at induction of anesthesia (mean ± SD: 2.0 ± 1.9 vs 2.9 ± 2.1, p = .0001) but higher at insertion of the TRUS probe (2.7 ± 2.5 vs 1.9 ± 1.7, p = .009). The pain score did not differ significantly between groups at needle penetration or throughout the biopsy. Univariate analyses indicated no significant association between VAS scores and patient demographics. Overall rates of serious complications did not differ between the two groups (5.6% vs 5.3%, p = .85). In patients with high BMI, the pain score was significantly lower in the PPNB group than in the CB group throughout the procedure (2.5 ± 2.0 vs 3.5 ± 2.5, p = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Both procedures were equally effective in reducing pain, and the incidence of serious complications was similar. PPNB with IRLA may be more applicable than CB with IRLA in obese patients.

Prostate cancer detection rate in Indonesian men

PURPOSES OF THE STUDY

To evaluate the overall detection rate of prostate cancer in biopsies according to serum prostate-specific antigen levels, determine the number of cores biopsied in Indonesian men, and provide a correlated staging of prostate cancer patients at varying intervals of prostate-specific antigen levels.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data from Indonesian men who had undergone prostate biopsy at two national referral medical centers in Jakarta from January 1995 to December 2014. Prostate biopsy was performed when levels of prostate-specific antigen were>4.0 ng/mL or malignancy was suspected upon digital rectal examination.

RESULTS

Of 2942 men who underwent biopsies, 844 (28.7%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer. When patients were stratified into five subgroups by serum prostate-specific antigen levels (< 4.0, 4.0-9.9, 10.0-19.9, 20.0-100.0, and>100.0 ng/mL), the overall detection rate of prostate cancer was 21.0%, 9.3%, 13.1%, 35.4%, and 92.9%, respectively. The detection rate was significantly higher in patients who underwent 10-core biopsies than in patients who underwent 6-core biopsies (31.6% vs. 22.4%, p<0.001). The receiver operating characteristic analysis to detect locally advanced/metastatic prostate cancer found that serum prostate-specific antigen levels of 42.7 ng/mL had a sensitivity of 74%, specificity of 73%, positive predictive value of 85.2%, and negative predictive value of 57.5%, with area under the curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interal 0.78 to 0.84).

CONCLUSION

The overall detection rate of prostate cancer in Indonesian men was 28.7%. The prostate cancer detection rate appeared to be lower than that observed in white men.

Local anesthesia for pain control during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intrarectal local anesthestic (IRLA), periprostatic nerve block (PPNB), and the combined modalities in alleviating the pain during transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature review was performed to identify all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about IRLA vs no anesthesia or placebo gel; PPNB vs no injection, periprostatic placebo injection, or IRLA; combined PPNB and IRLA vs PPNB alone; and combined PPNB and intraprostatic nerve block (IPNB) vs PPNB alone before TRUS-guided biopsy. Sources included MEDILINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from 1980 to 2016. The main outcomes were biopsy pain score, probe manipulation pain score, and anesthetic infiltration pain score assessed by the visual pain scale.

RESULTS

A total of 26 articles involving 36 RCTs were used in this analysis: Although IRLA can lead to pain reduction, the result was not statistically significant when compared with no anesthesia or placebo gel (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.22, 95% CI: -0.45 to 0, P=0.06). PPNB can lead to significantly lower biopsy pain scores when compared with no analgesia (WMD: -1.32, 95% CI: -1.68 to -0.95, P<0.00001), placebo injection (WMD: -2.62, 95% CI: -3.16 to -2.07, P<0.00001), or IRLA (WMD: -1.31, 95% CI: -1.40 to -1.22, P<0.00001). PPNB + IRLA can lead to significantly lower biopsy pain scores when compared with PPNB alone (WMD: -0.45, 95% CI: -0.62 to -0.28, P<0.00001). PPNB + IPNB can lead to significantly lower biopsy pain scores when compared with PPNB alone (WMD: -0.73, 95% CI: -0.92 to -0.55, P<0.00001). There were no severe reported general or local complications related to local anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicates that a combination of PPNB and IRLA/IPNB is effective and safe in alleviating the pain during TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to validate this result.

Intravenous paracetamol for relief of pain during transrectal-ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Transrectal-ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-PBx) is the standard procedure for diagnosing prostate cancer. The procedure does cause some pain and discomfort; therefore, an adequate analgesia is necessary to ensure patient comfort, which can also facilitate good-quality results. This prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study aimed to determine if intravenous (IV) paracetamol can reduce the severity of pain associated with TRUS-PBx. The study included 104 patients, scheduled to undergo TRUS-PBx with a suspicion of prostate cancer, that were prospectively randomized to receive either IV paracetamol (paracetamol group) or placebo (placebo group) 30 minutes prior to TRUS-PBx. All patients had 12 standardized biopsy samples taken. Pain was measured using a 10-point visual analog pain scale during probe insertion, during the biopsy procedure, and 1 hour postbiopsy. All biopsies were performed by the same urologist, whereas a different urologist administered the visual analog pain scale. There were not any significant differences in age, prostate-specific antigen level, or prostate volume between the two groups. The pain scores were significantly lower during probe insertion, biopsy procedure, and 1 hour postbiopsy in the paracetamol group than in the placebo group. In conclusion, the IV administration of paracetamol significantly reduced the severity of pain associated with TRUS-PBx.

Local anesthesia type affects cancer detection rate in transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy

PURPOSE

Studies about the anesthesia techniques during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) are usually focused on pain relief. Although patients' tolerance is an important issue in TRUS-Bx, cancer detection rate (CDR) must not be ignored. In this study, we compared the impact of intrarectal lidocaine gel anesthesia (IRLA) and periprostatic nerve blockade (PNB) techniques on CDR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 422 patients underwent 10 core-TRUS-Bx because of elevated serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) level (>2.5ng/mL) and/or suspicious digital rectal examination findings. Patients were divided into two groups according to the applied anesthesia technique: IRLA group and PNB group. Age, serum PSA level, prostate volume, visual analogue scale (VAS) score and CDR were recorded and compared statistically with chi square and unpaired t-tests.

RESULTS

Of the patients 126/422 (29.9%) underwent TRUS-Bx by using IRLA whereas 296/422 (70.1 %) by PNB technique. The mean, age, serum PSA level and prostate volume were similar between the two groups. CDR was 19.8% and 25.4% in IRLA and PNB groups, respectively (p=0.001). The mean VAS score of the PNB group (1.84±0.89) was significantly lower than that for IRLA group (3.62±1.06) (p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results revealed that PNB is superior to IRLA in terms of CDR. Further studies are required to confirm our findings.

Targeted Prostate Biopsy: Lessons Learned Midst the Evolution of a Disruptive Technology

Lessons learned during a 6-year experience with more than 1200 patients undergoing targeted prostate biopsy via MRI/ultrasound fusion are reported: (1) the procedure is safe and efficient, requiring some 15-20 minutes in an office setting; (2) MRI is best performed by a radiologist with specialized training, using a transabdominal multiparametric approach and preferably a 3T magnet; (3) grade of MRI suspicion is the most powerful predictor of biopsy results, eg, Grade 5 usually represents cancer; (4) some potentially important cancers (15%-30%) are MRI-invisible; (5) Targeted biopsies provide >80% concordance with whole-organ pathology. Early enthusiasm notwithstanding, cost-effectiveness is yet to be resolved, and the technologies remain in evolution.

Intrarectal ice application prior to transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective randomised trial accessing pain and collateral effects

Objectives

To analyze the efficacy of intrarectal ice application as an anesthetic method prior to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy.

Materials and Methods

A total of 120 consecutive men were included into the study prospectively. Patients were equally randomized as group 1 and 2 with 60 patients each. Ice was applied as an anesthetic method 5 minutes before procedure to the patients in group 1. Patients in group 2 were applied 10 ml of 2% lidocaine gel 10 minutes before procedure. Twelve core biopsy procedure was performed for all patients. The pain level was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS).

Results

Median pain score was 3.5 (1-8) in group 1 and 5 (1-8) in group 2. There is significantly difference between groups regarding the mean sense of pain level during the procedure. (p=0.007) There was also no difference in complications between two groups about presence and duration of macroscopic hematuria and rectal bleeding.

Conclusions

Intrarectal ice application prior to TRUS prostate biopsy has an effect on reducing pain. Development of new techniques about cold effect or ice can make this method more useful and decrease complication rates.

Penthrox alone versus Penthrox plus periprostatic infiltration of local analgesia for analgesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare pain intensity in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy of the prostate with Penthrox alone compared with Penthrox plus periprostatic infiltration of local analgesia (PILA).

METHOD

Seventy-two subjects participated in this study after receiving appropriate education. Forty-two patients self-administered inhaled Penthrox (3 mL methoxyflurane) alone for analgesia (Group A), followed by 30 patients who self-administered Penthrox and received PILA with 5 mL of 2% lignocaine. All subjects had TRUS biopsy performed. Immediately after the procedure, patients were asked to rate their pain intensity using a numerical verbal rating scale from 0 to 10.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. Patients in Group B reported significantly lower post TRUS biopsy median pain intensity of 2 (1-3) compared with Group A subjects who reported a median post TRUS biopsy pain intensity of 3 (2-5) (P = 0.014). A total of 72 men underwent TRUS-guided biopsy. All patients indicated they would be happy to have another TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in the future.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that Penthrox plus PILA shows promise as an efficacious and easily tolerated analgesic technique for outpatient TRUS biopsy, keeping resource use to a minimum. Planning for a multi-centre, double-blind randomized control trial comparing Penthrox plus PILA with PILA alone is presently underway.

Pain during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and the role of periprostatic nerve block: what radiologists should know

Early prostate cancers are best detected with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided core biopsy of the prostate. Due to increased longevity and improved prostate cancer screening, more men are now subjected to TRUS-guided biopsy. To improve the detection rate of early prostate cancer, the current trend is to increase the number of cores obtained. The significant pain associated with the biopsy procedure is usually neglected in clinical practice. Although it is currently underutilized, the periprostatic nerve block is an effective technique to mitigate pain associated with prostate biopsy. This article reviews contemporary issues pertaining to pain during prostate biopsy and discusses the practical aspects of periprostatic nerve block.

Optimization of prostate biopsy: review of technique and complications

A 12-core systematic biopsy that incorporates apical and far-lateral cores in the template distribution allows maximal cancer detection and avoidance of a repeat biopsy while minimizing the detection of insignificant prostate cancers. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy has an evolving role in both initial and repeat prostate biopsy strategies, potentially improving sampling efficiency, increasing the detection of clinically significant cancers, and reducing the detection of insignificant cancers. Hematuria, hematospermia, and rectal bleeding are common complications of prostate needle biopsy, but are generally self-limiting and well tolerated. All men should receive antimicrobial prophylaxis before biopsy.

Sedoanalgesia with midazolam and fentanyl citrate controls probe pain during prostate biopsy by transrectal ultrasound

PURPOSE

To assess the pain intensity of patients administered midazolam and fentanyl citrate before undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a study in patients with different indications for prostate biopsy in whom 5 mg of midazolam and 50 µg of fentanyl citrate was administered intravenously 3 minutes before the procedure. After biopsy, pain was assessed by use of a visual analogue scale (VAS) in three stages: VAS 1, during probe introduction; VAS 2, during needle penetration into prostate tissue; and VAS 3, in the weeks following the exam. Pain intensity at these different times was tested with stratification by age, race, education, prostate volume, rebiopsy, and anxiety before biopsy. Pain was ranked according to the following scores: 0 (no pain), 1-3 (mild pain), 4-7 (moderate pain), and 8-10 (severe pain). Statistical analysis was performed by using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon two-tailed tests with a significance of 5%.

RESULTS

Pain intensity was not influenced by any risk factors. The mean VAS 1 score was 1.95±1.98, the mean VAS 2 score was 2.73±2.55, and the mean VAS 3 score was 0.3±0.9, showing greater pain at the time of needle penetration than in other situations (VAS 2>VAS 1>VAS 3, p=0.0013, p=0.0001, respectively). Seventy-five percent of patients reported a VAS pain scale of less than 3.1 or mild pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous sedation and analgesia with midazolam and fentanyl citrate is a good method for reducing pain caused by prostate biopsy, even during probe insertion.

[The local anesthesia for the prostatic biopsies echo-guided: forward-looking randomized study comparing two methods]

INTRODUCTION

The realization of the prostatic biopsies is a painful act. The objective of our work was to compare the analgesic efficiency of the injection of the lidocaine at the level of periprostatics laterals and apical areas compared with the use of gel of lidocaine intrarectal associated with the taking of oral tramadol.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between November 2007 and December 2009, 60 patients admitted in the service of urology of the university hospital Mohammed VI of Marrakesh for prostatic biopsies were randomized in two groups. The group 1 (30 patients) received two tablets from tramadol 50mg with 10 mL of gel of lidocaine 2% intrarectal while 30 patients of the group 2 received 10 mL from lidocaine 2% injected at the level of periprostatics laterals and apicales. The pain was estimated by a visual analog scale (AVS) at the introduction of the probe of echography (AVS 1), at the time of the biopsy (AVS 2) and 20 minutes later (AVS 3).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between both groups concerning AVS 1 means. The average score of the pain was significantly lower in the group 2 for the AVS 2 and AVS 3.

CONCLUSION

The periprostatics anesthesia assured a better control of the pain at the time of the prostatic biopsy and 20 minutes later, without increase of the complications. We recommend it to decrease the pain and the discomfort related to this technique.

Medical technologies for the diagnosis of prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is an extremely prevalent problem, especially in our aging population. The prostate-specific antigen test has revolutionized prostate cancer screening. Significant advances have been made in the usage of prostate-specific antigen and its derivatives, biomarkers, diagnostic imaging techniques, biopsy strategy, biopsy needle design and anesthetic agents. Further improvement in prostate cancer detection hinges on the development of an imaging technique that is tumor specific and sensitive to biological aggressiveness.

Topical diltiazem before transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy of the prostate: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Injection of local anaesthetic agents around the prostatic nerve bundles during transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) biopsy of the prostate has shown to reduce the pain associated with the procedure. It has been shown that some of the discomfort associated with the procedure is secondary to spasm of the anal sphincter. Topical diltiazem can relax the anal sphincter. Our aim was to evaluate the use of topical diltiazem cream as an adjunct to periprostatic nerve block in reducing pain associated with TRUS-guided prostatic biopsy.

METHOD

Between September 2009 and September 2010, 114 patients were enrolled in the trial (from two centres). Patients undergoing TRUS biopsy of prostate were randomized into diltiazem and placebo groups. Patients were asked to fill out a questionnaire at the end of the procedure. The questionnaire enquired about discomfort associated with various parts of the procedure using a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

For discomfort due to the presence of the probe, pain during the biopsy and overall pain prior to leaving the department, mean VAS was higher for the placebo group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Diltiazem cream has a better side effect profile than glyceryl trinitrate cream and is better tolerated. Although we have demonstrated trends favouring diltiazem use as an adjunct to local anaesthetic in TRUS biopsy of the prostate, this did not reach a statistically significant level. The pain scores associated with TRUS biopsy in our cohort were lower than those in the published literature. This phenomenon might have contributed to the results observed in this trial.

Evaluation of the efficacy of a combination of diltiazem and periprostatic nerve block in pain control during transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy of the prostate

INTRODUCTION

The choice of analgesia during prostate biopsy remains controversial. The pain has dual origin: from the insertion of the probe as well as the biopsy itself. Periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) is currently the gold standard modality for decreasing pain of prostate biopsy but it does not alleviate the pain of probe insertion. A randomised controlled trial was performed to test the efficacy and safety of the combination of topical application of diltiazem gel and PPNB for pain control during transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy.

METHODS

A total of 73 patients who were to undergo their first prostate biopsy were randomised to receive either 2ml of 2% topical diltiazem gel or a placebo 15 minutes before the biopsy. All the patients then had a PPNB using 1% lignocaine. A ten- point visual analogue scale was used to record the pain immediately after the insertion of the probe and during the biopsy. Any adverse effects were also recorded.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the mean age and prostate volumes between the groups. There was a significantly lower mean pain score due to probe insertion in those patients who received topical diltiazem than in the placebo group (p<0.0001). There was no significant difference between the pain scores during the biopsy itself between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical diltiazem significantly reduces the pain of probe insertion during prostate biopsy and can be used effectively as an adjuvant to PPNB.

Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy

CONTEXT

Prostate biopsy is commonly performed for cancer detection and management. The benefits and risks of prostate biopsy are germane to ongoing debates about prostate cancer screening and treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of complications from prostate biopsy.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was performed using PubMed and Embase, supplemented with additional references. Articles were reviewed for data on the following complications: hematuria, rectal bleeding, hematospermia, infection, pain, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), urinary retention, erectile dysfunction, and mortality.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

After biopsy, hematuria and hematospermia are common but typically mild and self-limiting. Severe rectal bleeding is uncommon. Despite antimicrobial prophylaxis, infectious complications are increasing over time and are the most common reason for hospitalization after biopsy. Pain may occur at several stages of prostate biopsy and can be mitigated by anesthetic agents and anxiety-reduction techniques. Up to 25% of men have transient LUTS after biopsy, and <2% have frank urinary retention, with slightly higher rates reported after transperineal template biopsy. Biopsy-related mortality is rare.

CONCLUSIONS

Preparation for biopsy should include antimicrobial prophylaxis and pain management. Prostate biopsy is frequently associated with minor bleeding and urinary symptoms that usually do not require intervention. Infectious complications can be serious, requiring prompt management and continued work into preventative strategies.

Does Periprostatic Block Increase the Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) Biopsy Sepsis Rate in Men with Elevated PSA?

Introduction: Periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) is a common local anaesthetic technique in transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsy, but concerns remain over the increased theoretical risks of urinary tract infection (UTI) and sepsis from the additional transrectal needle punctures. This study reviewed our biopsy data to assess this risk. Materials and Methods: Retrospective data collected from 177 men who underwent TRUS biopsy between July 2007 and December 2009 in a single institution were analysed. PPNB was administered using 1% xylocaine at the prostatic base and apex and repeated on the contralateral side under ultrasound guidance. Complications, including UTI sepsis, bleeding per rectum and acute retention of urine (ARU) were noted. Every patient was tracked for the first 2 weeks for complications until his clinic review. Demographic profile, biopsy parameters and histological findings were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analysis of possible risk factors for development of sepsis after TRUS biopsy were performed. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 17.0. Results: Ninety (51%) men received PPNB and 87 (49%) did not. The groups were matched in age (PPNB: mean 62.7 ± 5.8 years; without PPNB: mean 64.4 ± 5.7 years) and prebiopsy prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels (PPNB: mean 8.2 ± 3.9 ng/mL; without PPNB: mean 8.3 ± 3.7 ng/mL). The PPNB group had a larger prostate volume, with more cores taken (P <0.05). On univariate and multivariate analysis controlling for age, PSA, prostate volume, number of cores taken and histological prostatitis, PPNB was not a significant risk factor for sepsis. Sepsis rates were 5.6% in the PPNB group and 5.7% in the other group (P = 0.956). Overall prostate cancer detection rate was 33.3%. Conclusion: The risk of sepsis was not increased in patients who received PPNB, even though this group had larger gland volumes and more biopsy cores taken. Key words: Periprostatic nerve block (PPNB), Sepsis, Transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsy

Identification of the variables associated with pain during transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy in the era of periprostatic nerve block: the role of transrectal probe configuration

OBJECTIVE

To identify the different factors that are associated with pain perceived during transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy (PBx), with special focus on the role of transrectal probe configuration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analysed prospective data on 1114 patients undergoing TRUS-guided PBx at our institute from January 2007 to August 2010. Patients completed questionnaires based on a 10-point visual analogue pain scale related to the consecutive steps of PBx: probe insertion, application of periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) and the obtaining of PBx cores. The variables of interest were age, prostate volume, DRE findings, number of previous biopsies, probe type and the number of retrieved cores. All variables were correlated to pain scores using multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

At the probe insertion step, end-fire probes were more painful than side-fire probes. The Siemens G50 with metal, short plastic and long plastic needle guides (Siemens, Munich, Germany) had higher pain scores than the B&K probe (Bruel & Kjaer Medical, Copenhagen, Denmark; P = 0.09, 0.008 and 0.003, respectively). For pain at the PPNB application step, all G50(TM) guide subtypes and the Sonoline Prima probe (Siemens) had higher pain scores than the B&K probe, but this only reached statistical significance for the G50(TM) probe with short plastic guide (P = 0.03). On obtaining PBx cores, all G50(TM) subtypes had higher pain scores when compared with the B&K probe (P = 0.59, 0.38 and 0.69, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The probe design and needle guide affect pain during each step of TRUS-guided PBx. Both the B&K and Sonoline Prima probes caused less pain when compared with the G50(TM) probe, regardless of needle guide.

The 'green whistle': a novel method of analgesia for transrectal prostate biopsy

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• Patients undergoing TRUS-guided biopsies were each given a Penthrox inhaler to self-administer during the procedure and instructed in its use. • Immediately after the procedure, patients were asked to rate their pain using a verbal rating scale from 0 to 10.

RESULTS

• In all, 42 consecutive men underwent a TRUS-guided biopsy. • The median pain score was 3. • All 42 patients stated they would be happy to undergo the same procedure again. The only adverse effects reported by patients were brief light-headedness and a sickly sweet taste.

CONCLUSION

• This study of our initial experience using Penthrox suggests that it may have a role in analgesia for TRUS-guided biopsy. • It may provide safe, adequate analgesia that is easy for urologists to use and avoids excessive use of resources. • Planning for a randomised control trial comparing Penthrox to the current 'gold standard' of prostatic infiltration of local anaesthetic is presently underway.

Impact of adoption of a decision algorithm including PCA3 for repeat biopsy on the costs for prostate cancer diagnosis in France

OBJECTIVE

A recent expert study (RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM)) including a panel of 12 European urologists reported that the PCA3 score may be instrumental in taking appropriate prostate biopsy (PBx) decisions, mainly for repeat PBx. This study determined the cost/benefit balance of introducing PCA3 in the decision-making for PBx in France.

METHODS

Two RAM models, without and with PCA3, were retrospectively applied to a sample of 808 French men who had PBx in 2010 (78% first, 22% repeat). Outcome measures included the proportion of PBx that could have been avoided (i.e., judged inappropriate) in the French sample according to both RAM models, and the estimated impact of application of these models on the annual number of PBx and associated costs for France (based on most recent published data).

RESULTS

Complete profiles were available for 698 men. In the model without PCA3, 2% of PBx were deemed inappropriate. Knowledge of PCA3 would have avoided another 7% of PBx. Repeat PBx would have been avoided in 5% of cases without PCA3 and in 37% with PCA3. For France, application of the RAM model including PCA3 would result in 18,345 fewer repeat PBx. It would be budget-neutral in the unlikely hypothesis of no complications or no costs incurred by complications and would save €1.7 million for a mean cost for complications of €100/procedure or €5 million for a mean cost for complications of €280/procedure, calculated based on US and Canadian data.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations of the study are the theoretical nature of the analysis and the fact that PCA3 distributions had to be derived from other sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of RAM expert recommendations including PCA3 for repeat PBx decisions in clinical practice in France would reduce the number of repeat PBx and control costs.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of topical diltiazem and nitroglycerine for pain relief during transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Transrectal ultrasound biopsy of prostate is a painful procedure. The introduction of the rectal probe is one of the major contributors to the pain associated with this procedure. Drugs that relax the anal sphincter should theoretically decrease this pain. This study was done to compare the efficacy and safety of two topical medications that relax the anal sphincter, diltiazem and nitroglycerine, in decreasing the pain associated with transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

66 patients who were to undergo their first prostate biopsy were randomized to receive either 2 mL of 2 % topical diltiazem or 2 mL of 0.2 % topical nitroglycerine or placebo 20 minutes before prostate biopsy. All patients also received 15 mL of intrarectal lignocaine. A 10-point visual analogue score was used to record the pain immediately after the insertion of the probe, during biopsy and at the end of the procedure.

RESULTS

The pain scores due to probe insertion, during biopsy and at the end of the procedure in patients who received topical diltiazem or nitroglycerine were significantly lower compared to the placebo group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the pain scores between the patients receiving diltiazem compared to those receiving nitroglycerine. Higher incidence of headache and fall in blood pressure was noted in patients who received nitroglycerine compared to those receiving diltiazem.

CONCLUSION

Topical diltiazem and nitroglycerine are equally effective in reducing the pain associated with transrectal prostatic biopsy. Diltiazem is safer compared to nitroglycerine.

Efficacy and cost analysis of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy under monitored anesthesia

Sedation may result in reduction in pain during transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combination of propofol and remifentanil infusion during TRUS-guided prostate biopsy and the related increases in health care costs. From January to September 2010, 100 men undergoing a transrectal prostate biopsy were randomized into two groups. In Group 1, 50 patients received a combined infusion of propofol and remifentanil; in Group 2, 50 patients received lidocaine jelly. After TRUS-guided biopsies were performed, pain and patient satisfaction were evaluated by a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), and a cost-related patient satisfaction questionnaire was completed by all patients. Patients were also asked whether they would be willing to undergo repeat biopsy by the same method. Patients in Group 1 showed a significantly lower VAS score than those in Group 2 (mean VAS score: 0.9±1.1 versus 6.3±2.5; P<0.001). In addition, the patient satisfaction scale was significantly higher in Group 1 (P=0.002). Although the overall cost was significantly higher in Group 1 (P=0.006), patient satisfaction scales considering cost were also higher in this group (P=0.009). A combination of propofol and remifentanil is a safe and effective way to decrease patient pain and increase patient satisfaction during TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Although the costs were higher in the group that received sedation, as expected, the patients exhibited heightened satisfaction and willingness to repeat biopsies by the same method.

The efficiency of a sedative or analgesic supplement to periprostatic nerve blockage for pain control during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy - a prospective, randomized, controlled, double blind study

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to examine the effect of a sedative or analgesic supplement to periprostatic nerve blockage (PNB) on pain reduction during probe insertion and needle penetration in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. We also investigated the effects of this procedure on the positive response rate in re-biopsy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred TRUS-guided prostate biopsy patients due to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels higher than 2.5 ng/ml and/or abnormal rectal examination findings were evaluated. Group 1 (PNB) was given periprostatic lidocaine injection before the procedure. Group 2 (analgesic) was given tramadol and PNB. Group 3 (sedative) was given midazolam and PNB. Group 4 (control) was not given any anaesthesia or analgesics. Pain scores were assessed during probe insertion and needle penetration by a visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

During probe insertion, the mean pain score of the sedative group was lower than that of the control, analgesic and PNB groups (p < 0.001, p = 0.009, and p < 0.001, respectively). During needle penetration, the mean pain score of the control group was higher than that of the other groups (p < 0.001). The rate of positive response to re-biopsy was found to be 56% in the control group and between 92% and 100% in the other three groups (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

According to our results, it can be concluded that midazolam, given supplementary to PNB, contributes as an effective and safe alternative for pain control during both probe insertion and penetration of the biopsy needle into the prostate capsule; however, tramadol supplement does not provide any additional contributions.

Safety and efficacy of combined transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy and transurethral resection of the prostate

Purpose

This study was conducted to examine whether simultaneous transrectal prostate needle biopsy (TPNB) owing to an increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels is safe and effective in patients who are scheduled for transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Materials and Methods

Combined TPNB and TURP was performed in a total of 42 patients aged 60 years and older who had gray-zone PSA values (4-10 ng/ml) and PSA density (PSAD) values of 0.12 and less. The frequencies of fever, sepsis, and epididymitis were assessed after surgery. The diagnostic accuracy was assessed, and the results of histologic examination were evaluated in terms of TPNB or TURP. In addition, the diagnostic accuracy was assessed according to age.

Results

Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 6 (14.3%) of the 42 patients: 2 patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer by TPNB only, 3 patients by TURP only, and 1 patient by combined TPNB and TURP. Four (25%) of the 16 patients aged under 70 years and 2 (7.8%) of the 26 patients aged 70 years and older were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Fever was observed in 9 patients (21.4%), 4 (9.5%) of whom had a fever of higher than 38℃. The fever normalized the day after surgery in all 9 patients. No septicemia was noted. There were no serious complications related to combined TPNB and TURP.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that combined TPNB and TURP may be safe and effective in patients who require TURP.

Which Technical Aspects have an Impact on Perceived Pain during Transperineal Prostate Biopsy? A Prospective Study Involving 445 Cases

To assess the technical aspects determining the perceived pain during prostate biopsy via transperineal access.

Materials and Methods

We conducted prostate biopsy with transperineal access in local anesthesia. Between January 2007 and January 2008, data on prostatic biopsies were prospectively surveyed. The patient was requested to assess perceived pain by means of a Visual Analogue Scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain). Complications were recorded by telephone interviews 30 days after the biopsy. The histological diagnosis was recorded.

Results

445 prostate biopsies were conducted. The average perceived pain score amounted to 2.60. At univariate analysis, a lower score was recorded in cases where the anesthetic agent was diluted with physiological saline, those in which a single cutaneous access was chosen along the middle line, those in the first bioptic series as compared to the following series and those in which no sampling involved the transition region. However, the multivariate analysis showed that only the single cutaneous access was statistically significant. In those cases, also the rates of delayed perineal pain were significantly lower. The cancer diagnosis rate showed no correlations with the type of cutaneous access.

Conclusions

A single median cutaneous access reduces the pain associated to transperineal prostatic biopsy.