Dataset Information

An evaluation of factors affecting pain during transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy: a real-life scenario in a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Periprostatic infiltration anesthesia (PPIA) and intrarectal topical anesthesia (IRTA) are recommended methods to control pain in transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx). This study evaluates the factors affecting pain during TRUS-Bx, considering the pathologies involved in anorectal pain etiology and comparing the effectiveness of local anesthesia techniques in providing patient comfort.

Material and methods

We retrospectively evaluated 477 consecutive patients with TRUS-Bx for elevated Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), abnormal rectal examination findings, or both. Patients were grouped as local anesthesia methods for pain control during TRUS-Bx. Both groups were compared in terms of age, body mass index, clinical T stage, PSA, prostate volume, number of biopsy cores, type of anesthesia, previous biopsy history, and presence of prostate cancer. We used a visual analog pain scale (VAS) to evaluate the patient's pain status; pre-procedure (VAS-0), during probe insertion (VAS-I), administration of anesthetic (VAS-A), and simultaneous with the biopsy procedure itself (VAS-Bx). For PPIA and IRTA, 4 ml lidocaine 20 mg/ml injection and 5 g 5% prilocaine-5% lidocaine cream was used, respectively.

Results

The PPIA was used 74.2% (n = 354) and IRTA was used for 25.8% (n = 123) patients. VAS-0, VAS-I, and VAS-A scores are similar between groups. VAS-Bx was significantly higher in the IRTA than in the PPIA (3.37 ± 0.18 vs. 2.36 ± 0.12 p > 0.001). Clinical T stage (OR: 0.59), number of biopsy cores (OR: 1.80), and type of anesthesia application (OR: 2.65) were independent variables on TRUS-Bx for pain.

Conclusion

Three factors play roles as independent variables associated with the pain in TRUS-Bx; abnormal rectal examination findings, collection of more than twelve core samples during the biopsy, and the type of anesthesia used. Compared with PPIA, IRTA does not improve pain related to probe insertion, and using IRTA results in higher pain scores for biopsy-related pain. Thus, we recommend a PPIA to lower biopsy-related pain.

SUBMITTER: Cebeci OO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8428265 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Korean Society of Urogenital Radiology (KSUR) aimed to present a consensus statement for patient preparation, standard technique, and pain management in relation to transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) to reduce the variability in TRUS-Bx methodologies and suggest a nationwide guideline. The KSUR guideline development subcommittee constructed questionnaires assessing prebiopsy anticoagulation, the cleansing enema, antimicrobial prophylaxis, local anesthesia methods such as periprostatic neurovascular bundle block (PNB) or intrarectal lidocaine gel application (IRLA), opioid usage, and the number of biopsy cores and length and diameter of the biopsy needle. The survey was conducted using an Internet-based platform, and responses were solicited from the 90 members registered on the KSUR mailing list as of 2018. A comprehensive search of relevant literature from Medline database was conducted. The strength of each recommendation was graded on the basis of the level of evidence. Among the 90 registered members, 29 doctors (32.2%) responded to this online survey. Most KSUR members stopped anticoagulants (100%) and antiplatelets (76%) one week before the procedure. All respondents performed a cleansing enema before TRUS-Bx. Approximately 86% of respondents administered prophylactic antibiotics before TRUS-Bx. The most frequently used antibiotics were third-generation cephalosporins. PNB was the most widely used pain control method, followed by a combination of PNB plus IRLA. Opioids were rarely used (6.8%), and they were used only as an adjunctive pain management approach during TRUS-Bx. The KSUR members mainly chose the 12-core biopsy method (89.7%) and 18G 16-mm or 22-mm (96.5%) needles. The KSUR recommends the 12-core biopsy scheme with PNB with or without IRLA as the standard protocol for TRUS-Bx. Anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents should be discontinued at least 5 days prior to the procedure, and antibiotic prophylaxis is highly recommended to prevent infectious complications. Glycerin cleansing enemas and administration of opioid analogues before the procedure could be helpful in some situations. The choice of biopsy needle is dependent on the practitioners' situation and preferences.

Project description:PURPOSE:Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion biopsy detect more high risk prostate cancer and less low risk prostate cancer than systematic biopsy. However, there remains a small subset of patients in whom systematic biopsy captures higher grade disease than fusion biopsy. We sought to identify potential mechanisms of the failure of fusion biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We reviewed a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by fusion biopsy and systematic biopsy from 2007 to 2014. In patients in whom disease was upgraded to clinically significant disease (Gleason 7 or greater) by systematic biopsy over fusion biopsy, independent re-review of magnetic resonance imaging, archived biopsy imaging and whole mount pathology as well as needle coordinate mapping were performed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to determine predictors of upgrading by systematic biopsy. RESULTS:Disease was upgraded based on systematic biopsy over fusion biopsy in 135 of 1,003 patients (13.5%), of whom only 62 (6.2%) were upgraded to intermediate (Gleason 7) and high risk (Gleason 8 or greater) prostate cancer (51 or 5.1% and 11 or 1.1%, respectively). On multivariate analysis lower prostate specific antigen (p <0.001), higher magnetic resonance imaging prostate volume (p <0.001) and a lower number of target cores (p = 0.001) were predictors of upgrading by systematic biopsy. Main mechanisms of under grading by fusion biopsy included multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging reader oversight, presence of magnetic resonance imaging invisible cancer, fusion biopsy technique error and intralesion Gleason heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS:Magnetic resonance imaging and fusion biopsy rarely missed clinically significant prostate cancer as only 62 of 1,003 cases (6.2%) were upgraded to clinically significant disease by systematic biopsy. Imaging and biopsy techniques are continually refined. Further studies will help clarify mechanisms of fusion biopsy failure and the patient populations that benefit from systematic biopsy in addition to fusion biopsy.