OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of a novel technique of administering local anesthesia for extensive prostate biopsy. Little reported experience with local anesthesia for extensive prostate biopsy methods is available. METHODS: A prospective, randomized study was performed on 50 men undergoingtransrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy using the five-region technique. Patients were randomized into one of two groups. One group received 22 mL of a 1% lidocaine solution injected into the neurovascular bundles, the genitourinary diaphragm, and between the rectal wall and prostate. The second group received 10 mL of 2% intrarectal lidocaine jelly. A median of 12 biopsy cores was obtained from each patient. The patients were then asked by a urology nurse unaware of the anesthesia method to grade the discomfort using a 10-point linear visual analog pain scale. RESULTS:Twenty-three men receivedanesthesia with lidocaine jelly, and 27 received anesthesia with lidocaine infiltration. The mean pain scores were significantly different statistically between the lidocaine jelly and lidocaine infiltration groups with respect to overall pain (4.2 versus 0.5) and pain during the biopsy portion of the procedure (4.2 versus 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Extensive biopsy techniques may be comfortably performed by the urologist in an office setting using local anesthesia. The administration of 22 mL of a 1% lidocaine solution, injected at the prostatic pedicles, the genitourinary diaphragm, and the space between the prostate and rectum, allows the patient to comfortably undergo an extensive biopsy protocol in an office setting.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of a novel technique of administering local anesthesia for extensive prostate biopsy. Little reported experience with local anesthesia for extensive prostate biopsy methods is available. METHODS: A prospective, randomized study was performed on 50 men undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy using the five-region technique. Patients were randomized into one of two groups. One group received 22 mL of a 1% lidocaine solution injected into the neurovascular bundles, the genitourinary diaphragm, and between the rectal wall and prostate. The second group received 10 mL of 2% intrarectal lidocaine jelly. A median of 12 biopsy cores was obtained from each patient. The patients were then asked by a urology nurse unaware of the anesthesia method to grade the discomfort using a 10-point linear visual analog pain scale. RESULTS: Twenty-three men received anesthesia with lidocaine jelly, and 27 received anesthesia with lidocaine infiltration. The mean pain scores were significantly different statistically between the lidocaine jelly and lidocaine infiltration groups with respect to overall pain (4.2 versus 0.5) and pain during the biopsy portion of the procedure (4.2 versus 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Extensive biopsy techniques may be comfortably performed by the urologist in an office setting using local anesthesia. The administration of 22 mL of a 1% lidocaine solution, injected at the prostatic pedicles, the genitourinary diaphragm, and the space between the prostate and rectum, allows the patient to comfortably undergo an extensive biopsy protocol in an office setting.