Ferhat Ateş1, Furkan Dursun2, Ercan Malkoç1, Ömer Yılmaz1, Hasan Soydan1, Hüseyin Şen3, Şeref Başal1, Fatih Zekey4, Kenan Karademir1. 1. Department of Urology, Gülhane Military Medical Academy Haydarpaşa Training Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Urology, Gümüşsuyu Military Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey. 3. Department of Anesthesia, Gülhane Military Medical Academy Haydarpaşa Training Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey. 4. Department of Urology, Hakkari Military Hospital, Hakkari, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare two different doses of lidocaine used for periprostatic nerve block on pain perception during transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 288 patients with elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels and/or abnormal digital rectal examination who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy were included in the study. The patients were divided into 3 groups: Group 1 (n=103) prostate biopsy were performed after administering perianal intrarectal application of 10 mL 2% lidocaine gel, Group 2 (n=98) 2 mL of 2% lidocaine injection on each side following rectal installation of lidocaine geland Group 3 (n=87) 4 mL of 2% lidocaine injection on each side after rectal instillation of lidocaine gel. Patients' pain scores during biopsy procedure were reported using visual analogue score (VAS). Independent sample t test, ANOVA test and Tukey test were used for statistical evaluation. RESULTS: The mean age, prostate volume and PSA level were 65.6±8.4 years, 58.2±34.8 mL, and 11.8±3.4 ng/mL respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. The mean VAS scores were 2.4±1.8 in Group 1, 2.5±1.9 in Group 2 and 1.6±1.6 in Group 3. Patients in Group 3, reported significant pain reduction compared with patients in Groups 1 and 2 (p=0.002, and 0.001, respectively). However, there was no statistically significant difference in VAS scores between Groups 1 and 2 (p=0.815). CONCLUSION: According to our results we recommend the use of perianal intrarectal lidocain gel application, and periprostatic nerve block with injection of 4 ml 2% lidocaine per side combination in TRUS-guided prostate biopsies. Further large-scale randomized control studies are needed to validate these finding.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare two different doses of lidocaine used for periprostatic nerve block on pain perception during transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 288 patients with elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels and/or abnormal digital rectal examination who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy were included in the study. The patients were divided into 3 groups: Group 1 (n=103) prostate biopsy were performed after administering perianal intrarectal application of 10 mL 2% lidocaine gel, Group 2 (n=98) 2 mL of 2% lidocaine injection on each side following rectal installation of lidocaine gel and Group 3 (n=87) 4 mL of 2% lidocaine injection on each side after rectal instillation of lidocaine gel. Patients' pain scores during biopsy procedure were reported using visual analogue score (VAS). Independent sample t test, ANOVA test and Tukey test were used for statistical evaluation. RESULTS: The mean age, prostate volume and PSA level were 65.6±8.4 years, 58.2±34.8 mL, and 11.8±3.4 ng/mL respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. The mean VAS scores were 2.4±1.8 in Group 1, 2.5±1.9 in Group 2 and 1.6±1.6 in Group 3. Patients in Group 3, reported significant pain reduction compared with patients in Groups 1 and 2 (p=0.002, and 0.001, respectively). However, there was no statistically significant difference in VAS scores between Groups 1 and 2 (p=0.815). CONCLUSION: According to our results we recommend the use of perianal intrarectal lidocain gel application, and periprostatic nerve block with injection of 4 ml 2% lidocaine per side combination in TRUS-guided prostate biopsies. Further large-scale randomized control studies are needed to validate these finding.
Authors: Carmen Maccagnano; Vincenzo Scattoni; Marco Roscigno; Marco Raber; Diego Angiolilli; Francesco Montorsi; Patrizio Rigatti Journal: Urol Int Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Andreas P Berger; Ferdinand Frauscher; Ethan J Halpern; Robert Spranger; Hannes Steiner; Georg Bartsch; Wolfgang Horninger Journal: Urology Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Andreas Lunacek; Christof Mrstik; Josef Simon; Ferdinand Frauscher; Christian Schwentner; Christian Radmayr; Wolfgang Horninger; Eugen Plas Journal: Int J Urol Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 3.369
Authors: Joon Se Jung; Hee Nam Moon; Jung Im Kim; Sang Rak Bae; Chang Hee Han; Bong Hee Park Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 2.370