INTRODUCTION: To test the hypothesis that periprostatic block could completely relief prostatic biopsy-associated pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients scheduled for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy were randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to no analgesia (group A), endorectal enema of 1% lidocaine gel (group B) or transrectal periprostatic block (group C). All patients underwent 10 core TRUS-guided biopsy. After the procedure, a ten visual analogue pain score (VAS) from 0 = no discomfort to 10 = severe pain was administered to the biopsied patients and a global estimation of pain associated with the procedure was obtained. The study design included interim analysis of pain score after the first 60 patients were enrolled. Kruskal-Wallis test for unpaired data was used for statistical analysis. Data are presented as mean, median (range). RESULTS:Sixty patients were enrolled between May 2003 and December 2003 and all patients were evaluable. Mean and median age was 68.5 and 69 (range 53-82) years, respectively. Mean and median PSA was 86.8 and 9 ng/ml (range 0.58-4.111), respectively. No major side effects were observed. Patients in group A scored at VAS a median 4, mean 5.5 +/- 2.3 (range 3-10). Patients in group B scored a median 4, mean 5.5 +/- 2.7 (range 3-10) (p = 0.237). Patients receiving periprostatic injections of carbocaine (group C) scored a median 0, mean 0.5 +/- 0.8 (range 0-2). The level of pain reported by this group of patients was significantly different from those reported by patients who performed prostatic biopsy without anesthesia or with intrarectal anesthetic jelly (p = 0.00001). In the periprostatic block group 65% of patients referred no pain after the procedure (VAS = 0) while all patients in the other groups experience some degree of pain. CONCLUSION: The use of bilateral periprostatic block is a very effective and useful technique, well tolerated by the patient, which almost completely abolishes the pain and discomfort associated with the prostatic biopsy procedure. Copyright 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: To test the hypothesis that periprostatic block could completely relief prostatic biopsy-associated pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients scheduled for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy were randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to no analgesia (group A), endorectal enema of 1% lidocaine gel (group B) or transrectal periprostatic block (group C). All patients underwent 10 core TRUS-guided biopsy. After the procedure, a ten visual analogue pain score (VAS) from 0 = no discomfort to 10 = severe pain was administered to the biopsied patients and a global estimation of pain associated with the procedure was obtained. The study design included interim analysis of pain score after the first 60 patients were enrolled. Kruskal-Wallis test for unpaired data was used for statistical analysis. Data are presented as mean, median (range). RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled between May 2003 and December 2003 and all patients were evaluable. Mean and median age was 68.5 and 69 (range 53-82) years, respectively. Mean and median PSA was 86.8 and 9 ng/ml (range 0.58-4.111), respectively. No major side effects were observed. Patients in group A scored at VAS a median 4, mean 5.5 +/- 2.3 (range 3-10). Patients in group B scored a median 4, mean 5.5 +/- 2.7 (range 3-10) (p = 0.237). Patients receiving periprostatic injections of carbocaine (group C) scored a median 0, mean 0.5 +/- 0.8 (range 0-2). The level of pain reported by this group of patients was significantly different from those reported by patients who performed prostatic biopsy without anesthesia or with intrarectal anesthetic jelly (p = 0.00001). In the periprostatic block group 65% of patients referred no pain after the procedure (VAS = 0) while all patients in the other groups experience some degree of pain. CONCLUSION: The use of bilateral periprostatic block is a very effective and useful technique, well tolerated by the patient, which almost completely abolishes the pain and discomfort associated with the prostatic biopsy procedure. Copyright 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Antonio Cicione; Francesco Cantiello; Cosimo De Nunzio; Andrea Tubaro; Rocco Damiano Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.862