Literature DB >> 14550444

Pain assessment after original transperineal prostate biopsy using a coaxial needle.

Giovanni Novella1, Vincenzo Ficarra, Antonio Galfano, Riccardo Ballario, Giacomo Novara, Stefano Cavalleri, Walter Artibani.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the use of a coaxial needle reduces discomfort in patients undergoing multiple-core transperineal prostate biopsy to detect prostate cancer.
METHODS: From October 2002 to January 2003, we enrolled 102 consecutive patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer. In every case, we performed a 14-core transperineal prostate biopsy under transrectal ultrasound guidance. The patients were randomized into two groups: group 1 (n = 51) in which we used the 17-gauge coaxial TruGuide needle, and group 2 (n = 51) in which the conventional transperineal technique was used. At the end of the procedure, patients were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding the level of pain experienced.
RESULTS: The studied groups were comparable in age, total prostate-specific antigen value, and prostate volume. The whole procedure was significantly less painful in group 1 (2.20 +/- 1.20 versus 2.90 +/- 1.73, P = 0.01). We failed to show any significant pain score differences during rectal probe insertion (P = 0.10), transrectal ultrasonography (P = 0.16), and execution of local anesthesia (P = 0.11). The pain score recorded during the multiple-core prostate sampling was significantly lower in group 1 (1.53 +/- 1.5 versus 2.43 +/- 1.86, P = 0.009). No statistically significant differences were found in the complication rates between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a coaxial needle reduces the procedure's invasiveness and patient's pain compared with the conventional transperineal prostate biopsy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14550444     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(03)00483-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  6 in total

Review 1.  Transperineal biopsy of the prostate--is this the future?

Authors:  Dwayne T S Chang; Benjamin Challacombe; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Does needle calibre affect pain and complication rates in patients undergoing transperineal prostate biopsy? A prospective, randomized trial.

Authors:  Giovanni Saredi; Saredi Giovanni; Maria Chiara Sighinolfi; Francesco Fidanza; Fidanza Francesco; Stefano De Stefani; De Stefani Stefano; Salvatore Micali; Micali Salvatore; Paterlini Maurizio; Maurizio Paterlini; Roberto D'Amico; Giampaolo Bianchi; Bianchi Giampaolo
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2009-09-21       Impact factor: 3.285

Review 3.  Transperineal prostate biopsy: The modern gold standard to prostate cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Gernot Ortner; Eirini Tzanaki; Bhavan Prasad Rai; Udo Nagele; Theodoros Tokas
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-10-09

4.  Improving the safety and tolerability of local anaesthetic outpatient transperineal prostate biopsies: A pilot study of the CAMbridge PROstate Biopsy (CAMPROBE) method.

Authors:  D Thurtle; L Starling; K Leonard; T Stone; V J Gnanapragasam
Journal:  J Clin Urol       Date:  2018-03-05

5.  Safety and feasibility of freehand transperineal prostate biopsy under local anesthesia: Our initial experience.

Authors:  Ananthakrishnan Sivaraman; Vasantharaja Ramasamy; P Aarthy; Vinoth Sankar; P B Sivaraman
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2022-01-01

Review 6.  Role of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Transperineal Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Spyridon P Basourakos; Mark N Alshak; Patrick J Lewicki; Emily Cheng; Michael Tzeng; Antonio P DeRosa; Mathew J Allaway; Ashley E Ross; Edward M Schaeffer; Hiten D Patel; Jim C Hu; Michael A Gorin
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2022-01-29
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.