Literature DB >> 29942197

Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Versus Transperineal Mapping Prostate Biopsy: Complication Comparison.

Vassilios M Skouteris1, E David Crawford2, Vladimir Mouraviev3, Paul Arangua2, Marios Panagiotis Metsinis1, Michael Skouteris1, George Zacharopoulos1, Nelson N Stone4.   

Abstract

Herein, the authors compare morbidity in men who underwent both transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsy and transperineal mapping biopsy (TPMB) at two institutions with extensive experience in both procedures. We also identified strategies and predictive factors to reduce morbidity for both procedures. In our study, 379 men from two institutions, of which 265 (69.9%) had a prior TRUS-guided biopsy, also had TPMB performed via a template with biopsies taken at 5-mm intervals. Men in the TRUS group had a median of 12 cores sampled whereas the TPMB group had 51.5 (range, 16-151). The median biopsy density was 1.1 core/cc prostate volume. Median age and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level were 65 years (range, 34-86) and 5.5 ng/mL (range, 0.02-118). Of these men, 11 of 265 (4.2%) who had TRUS biopsy developed urinary tract infection compared with 3 of 379 (0.79%) of those with mapping biopsy. Infection was 14.8% in TRUS biopsy group with 13 or more cores versus 2.9% in those with 12 or less (OR, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.6-21.2; P = 0.003). No men developed retention after TRUS biopsy whereas 30 of 379 (7.9%) did following TPMB. Older age, larger prostate volume (PV), and higher core number were associated with retention. On linear regression only age (P = 0.010) and PV (P = 0.016) remained as significant associations. Men older than 65 years had 12.8% versus 3.9% (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.6-8.4, P = 0.001) and PV greater than 42 cc had 13.4% versus 2.7% (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.1-15.1) retention incidence. In the present study TPMB is rarely associated with infection (0.78%) but more commonly with urinary retention (7.9%). Men older than 65 years and with PV greater than 42 cc were at four to five times greater retention risk. Consideration should be given to discharging these men with a urinary catheter following TPMB.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complications; Transperieneal mapping; Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy; prostate biopsy

Year:  2018        PMID: 29942197      PMCID: PMC6003299          DOI: 10.3909/riu0785

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Urol        ISSN: 1523-6161


  40 in total

1.  Transperineal 12-core systematic biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  M Kojima; T Hayakawa; T Saito; H Mitsuya; Y Hayase
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.369

2.  Prostate biopsy: current status and limitations.

Authors:  Joseph C Presti
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2007

3.  Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence.

Authors:  Niall M Corcoran; Matthew K H Hong; Rowan G Casey; Antonio Hurtado-Coll; Justin Peters; Laurence Harewood; S Larry Goldenberg; Chris M Hovens; Anthony J Costello; Martin E Gleave
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 4.  Sepsis and 'superbugs': should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy?

Authors:  Jeremy P Grummet; Mahesha Weerakoon; Sean Huang; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Mark Frydenberg; Daniel A Moon; Mary O'Reilly; Declan Murphy
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Is it possible to predict sepsis, the most serious complication in prostate biopsy?

Authors:  Adnan Simsir; Erkan Kismali; Rashad Mammadov; Gurhan Gunaydin; Cag Cal
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 2.089

6.  Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Cancers - A Viable Solution to Overtreatment?

Authors:  Megan R Haymart; David C Miller; Sarah T Hawley
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Acute urinary retention after transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Steven J Buskirk; David M Pinkstaff; Steven P Petrou; Michael J Wehle; Gregory A Broderick; Paul R Young; Stephen D Weigand; Peter C O'Brien; Todd C Igel
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-08-01       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 8.  Complications following permanent prostate brachytherapy.

Authors:  N N Stone; R G Stock
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Comparative Effectiveness of Single versus Combination Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Infections after Transrectal Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Kaylee Marino; Anne Parlee; Ralph Orlando; Lori Lerner; Judith Strymish; Kalpana Gupta
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 10.  Complications After Systematic, Random, and Image-guided Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Marco Borghesi; Hashim Ahmed; Robert Nam; Edward Schaeffer; Riccardo Schiavina; Samir Taneja; Wolfgang Weidner; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  12 in total

1.  Infectious complications of prostate biopsy: winning battles but not war.

Authors:  Okan Derin; Limírio Fonseca; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Matthew J Roberts
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Rationale and protocol for randomized study of transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy efficacy and complications (ProBE-PC study).

Authors:  Badar M Mian; Ronald P Kaufman; Hugh A G Fisher
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2021-03-25       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 3.  Prostate cancer.

Authors:  Richard J Rebello; Christoph Oing; Karen E Knudsen; Stacy Loeb; David C Johnson; Robert E Reiter; Silke Gillessen; Theodorus Van der Kwast; Robert G Bristow
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 52.329

4.  MRI Screening and MRI/US Fusion-Guided Transperineal Biopsy in Detecting Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Hongqing Yin; Jun Shao; Huan Song; Wei Ding; Bin Xu; Hui Cao; Jianming Wang
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec

5.  LMTK2 as Potential Biomarker for Stratification between Clinically Insignificant and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Alvydas Vezelis; Julija Simiene; Daiva Dabkeviciene; Marius Kincius; Albertas Ulys; Kestutis Suziedelis; Sonata Jarmalaite; Feliksas Jankevicius
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2021-01-05       Impact factor: 4.375

6.  Rebiopsy rate after transperineal or transrectal prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Jose L Marenco Jimenez; Francesco Claps; Juan C Ramón-Borja; Juan M Mascarós Martinez; Augusto W Gutierrez; Álvaro G F Lozano; Miguel Ramírez-Backhaus; Jose L Domìnguez Escrig; Argimiro C Serra; Jose Rubio-Briones
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2020-10-17

Review 7.  Transrectal Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer: Current Utilization, Integration with mpMRI, HIFU and Other Emerging Applications.

Authors:  John Panzone; Timothy Byler; Gennady Bratslavsky; Hanan Goldberg
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 3.989

8.  Local versus general anesthesia transperineal prostate biopsy: Tolerability, cancer detection, and complications.

Authors:  Donnacha Hogan; Abbie Kanagarajah; Henry H Yao; David Wetherell; Brendan Dias; Phil Dundee; Kevin Chu; Homayoun Zargar; Helen E O'Connell
Journal:  BJUI Compass       Date:  2021-09-10

9.  Transperineal Laser Ablation Treatment for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Due to Benign Prostatic Obstruction: Protocol for a Prospective In Vivo Pilot Study.

Authors:  Rob A A van Kollenburg; Luigi A M J G van Riel; Paul R Bloemen; Jorg R Oddens; Theo M de Reijke; Harrie P Beerlage; Daniel Martijn de Bruin
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2020-01-21

10.  Exploring Patient Views and Acceptance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Investigation of Suspected Prostate Cancer (the PACT Study): A Mixed-Methods Study Protocol.

Authors:  Joseph M Norris; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Clare Allen; Rhys Ball; Alex Freeman; Maneesh Ghei; Alex Kirkham; Hayley C Whitaker; Daniel Kelly; Mark Emberton
Journal:  Methods Protoc       Date:  2020-03-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.