PURPOSE: We evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness and role of transperineal prostate block in providing anesthesia during minimally invasive radio frequency thermal therapy of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 38 consecutive patients undergoing transurethral needle ablation for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia were entered in this prospective study. All patients received transperineal prostatic block as the main method of anesthesia. A mixture of equal volumes of 1% lidocaine and 0.25% bupivacaine, each with epinephrine (1:100,000 concentration ratio) was used. Pain control during the instillation of transperineal prostatic block and transurethral needle ablation was assessed using a 10-point linear analog pain scale and questionnaire. RESULTS: Median patient age was 65.5 years (range 47 to 79), with 21% of men in the eighth decade of life. Median American Urological Association symptom score was 25.0 (range 14 to 35), bother score was 20.0 (11 to 28), quality of life score was 4.0 (3 to 6) and peak urinary flow rate was 8.9 cc per second (3.5 to 15.7). Median sonographic prostate volume was 35.0 cc (range 17 to 129). Median volume of anesthetic agent used was 40.0 cc (range 30 to 60) per case (1.1 cc solution per 1 cc prostate tissue). No adverse events were encountered. Median pain score was 3.3 (range 1 to 6) during instillation of transperineal prostatic block and 1.0 (0 to 6) during transurethral needle ablation. Transperineal prostatic block proved highly effective and was a satisfactory method of anesthesia during transurethral needle ablation as judged by postoperative questionnaire. No sedation, narcotic or analgesia was required. All procedures were performed in the outpatient cystoscopy suite or office setting without support of an anesthesia team or conscious sedation monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal prostatic block is a safe, convenient, effective and satisfactory method of minimally invasive anesthesia for transurethral needle ablation of the prostate in an outpatient office setting. Elderly patients and those at high surgical risk can be treated safely using this approach. Considerable cost saving is seen secondary to omission of charges related to anesthesia team support, recovery room facility and conscious sedation monitoring.
PURPOSE: We evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness and role of transperineal prostate block in providing anesthesia during minimally invasive radio frequency thermal therapy of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 38 consecutive patients undergoing transurethral needle ablation for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia were entered in this prospective study. All patients received transperineal prostatic block as the main method of anesthesia. A mixture of equal volumes of 1% lidocaine and 0.25% bupivacaine, each with epinephrine (1:100,000 concentration ratio) was used. Pain control during the instillation of transperineal prostatic block and transurethral needle ablation was assessed using a 10-point linear analog pain scale and questionnaire. RESULTS: Median patient age was 65.5 years (range 47 to 79), with 21% of men in the eighth decade of life. Median American Urological Association symptom score was 25.0 (range 14 to 35), bother score was 20.0 (11 to 28), quality of life score was 4.0 (3 to 6) and peak urinary flow rate was 8.9 cc per second (3.5 to 15.7). Median sonographic prostate volume was 35.0 cc (range 17 to 129). Median volume of anesthetic agent used was 40.0 cc (range 30 to 60) per case (1.1 cc solution per 1 cc prostate tissue). No adverse events were encountered. Median pain score was 3.3 (range 1 to 6) during instillation of transperineal prostatic block and 1.0 (0 to 6) during transurethral needle ablation. Transperineal prostatic block proved highly effective and was a satisfactory method of anesthesia during transurethral needle ablation as judged by postoperative questionnaire. No sedation, narcotic or analgesia was required. All procedures were performed in the outpatient cystoscopy suite or office setting without support of an anesthesia team or conscious sedation monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal prostatic block is a safe, convenient, effective and satisfactory method of minimally invasive anesthesia for transurethral needle ablation of the prostate in an outpatient office setting. Elderly patients and those at high surgical risk can be treated safely using this approach. Considerable cost saving is seen secondary to omission of charges related to anesthesia team support, recovery room facility and conscious sedation monitoring.