Marco Borghesi1, Hashim Ahmed2, Robert Nam3, Edward Schaeffer4, Riccardo Schiavina5, Samir Taneja6, Wolfgang Weidner7, Stacy Loeb8. 1. Department of Urology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine (DIMES), Cardio-Nephro-Thoracic Sciences Doctorate, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: mark.borghesi1@gmail.com. 2. Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK. 3. Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 4. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Department of Urology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine (DIMES), Cardio-Nephro-Thoracic Sciences Doctorate, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 6. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, University Clinic of Giessen, Giessen, Germany. 8. Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Prostate biopsy (PB) represents the gold standard method to confirm the presence of cancer. In addition to traditional random or systematic approaches, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided technique has been introduced recently. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of complications after transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided, transperineal, and MRI-guided PB. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic literature search of Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus databases up to October 2015, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Complications and mortality following random, systematic, and image-guided PBs were reviewed. Eighty-five references were included. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The most frequent complication after PB was minor and self-limiting bleeding (hematuria and hematospermia), regardless of the biopsy approach. Occurrence of rectal bleeding was comparable for traditional TRUS-guided and image-guided PBs. Almost 25% of patients experienced lower urinary tract symptoms, but only a few had urinary retention, with higher rates after a transperineal approach. Temporary erectile dysfunction was not negligible, with a return to baseline after 1-6 mo. The incidence of infective complications is increasing, with higher rates among men with medical comorbidities and older age. Transperineal and in-bore MRI-targeted biopsy may reduce the risk of severe infectious complications. Mortality after PB is uncommon, regardless of biopsy technique. CONCLUSIONS: Complications after PB are frequent but often self-limiting. The incidence of hospitalization due to severe infections is continuously increasing. The patient's general health status, risk factors, and likelihood of antimicrobial resistance should be carefully appraised before scheduling a PB. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the variety and incidence of complications after prostate biopsy. Even if frequent, complications seldom represent a problem for the patient. The most troublesome complications are infections. To minimize this risk, the patient's medical condition should be carefully evaluated before biopsy.
CONTEXT: Prostate biopsy (PB) represents the gold standard method to confirm the presence of cancer. In addition to traditional random or systematic approaches, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided technique has been introduced recently. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of complications after transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided, transperineal, and MRI-guided PB. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic literature search of Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus databases up to October 2015, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Complications and mortality following random, systematic, and image-guided PBs were reviewed. Eighty-five references were included. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The most frequent complication after PB was minor and self-limiting bleeding (hematuria and hematospermia), regardless of the biopsy approach. Occurrence of rectal bleeding was comparable for traditional TRUS-guided and image-guided PBs. Almost 25% of patients experienced lower urinary tract symptoms, but only a few had urinary retention, with higher rates after a transperineal approach. Temporary erectile dysfunction was not negligible, with a return to baseline after 1-6 mo. The incidence of infective complications is increasing, with higher rates among men with medical comorbidities and older age. Transperineal and in-bore MRI-targeted biopsy may reduce the risk of severe infectious complications. Mortality after PB is uncommon, regardless of biopsy technique. CONCLUSIONS: Complications after PB are frequent but often self-limiting. The incidence of hospitalization due to severe infections is continuously increasing. The patient's general health status, risk factors, and likelihood of antimicrobial resistance should be carefully appraised before scheduling a PB. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the variety and incidence of complications after prostate biopsy. Even if frequent, complications seldom represent a problem for the patient. The most troublesome complications are infections. To minimize this risk, the patient's medical condition should be carefully evaluated before biopsy.
Authors: Alessandro Tafuri; Akbar N Ashrafi; Suzanne Palmer; Aliasger Shakir; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Atsuko Iwata; Tsuyoshi Iwata; Jie Cai; Akash Sali; Chhavi Gupta; Luis G Medina; Mariana C Stern; Vinay Duddalwar; Manju Aron; Inderbir S Gill; Andre Abreu Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: James A Dickinson; Nicholas Pimlott; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Brenda J Wilson; Stéphane Groulx; Guylène Thériault; Neil R Bell Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: James A Dickinson; Nicholas Pimlott; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Brenda J Wilson; Stéphane Groulx; Guylène Thériault; Neil R Bell Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Nathaniel Oswald; Tengda Lin; Benjamin Haaland; Michael Flynn; Kensaku Kawamoto; Kathleen A Cooney; William Lowrance; Heidi A Hanson; Brock O'Neil Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Abhinav Sidana; Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Srinivas Vourganti; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Akhil Muthigi; Mahir Maruf; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Jeffrey W Nix; Maria J Merino; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 3.498