Literature DB >> 30864006

A randomized controlled comparison between periprostatic nerve block and pelvic plexus block at the base and apex of 14-core prostate biopsies.

Sung Jin Kim1, Jongpill Lee2, Dong Hyeon An2, Chang-Hoo Park1, Ju Hyun Lim1, Han Gwun Kim1, Jong Yeon Park3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the pain control efficacies of the pelvic plexus block (PPB), periprostatic nerve block (PNB), and controls during a 14-core basal and apical core prostate biopsy.
METHODS: This randomized controlled study, performed between January 2015 and January 2016, included patients with an abnormal serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA > 3 ng/mL) level or a palpable nodule on digital rectal examination. The enrolled patients were randomized into three groups: Group 1, intrarectal local anesthesia (IRLA, 10 mL of 2% lidocaine jelly) and PPB with 3.0 mL of 2% lidocaine injected at the bilateral pelvic plexus; Group 2, IRLA and PNB with 3.0 mL of 2% lidocaine injected at both periprostatic nerves; and Group 3, only IRLA. Patients answered the visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire at 6 time points.
RESULTS: This study consisted of 163 patients (Group 1 = 55, Group 2 = 55, and Group 3 = 53). Pain at the apical biopsy location was less in Groups 1 and 2 than in Group 3 (p < 0.001, p < 0.001) and between the two local anesthetic groups (PNB + IRLA vs PPB + IRLA). Group 2 patients reported less pain than Group 1 patients (p = 0.022). Pain during the basal core biopsy was significantly less in Groups 1 and 2 than in Group 3 (p = 0.002, p < 0.001), but there were no significant differences in pain control between the two methods (PNB + IRLA vs PPB + IRLA, p = 0.054) during basal core biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: PNB + IRLA is an effective local anesthetic method for reducing pain when performing apical biopsies compared with PPB + IRLA or IRLA alone.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biopsy; Pain; Pelvic plexus; Prostate

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30864006     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02722-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  25 in total

1.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013.

Authors:  Axel Heidenreich; Patrick J Bastian; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Theodor van der Kwast; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Thomas Wiegel; F Zattoni; Nicolas Mottet
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-10-06       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Long-term fluoroquinolone use before the prostate biopsy may increase the risk of sepsis caused by resistant microorganisms.

Authors:  Bülent Akduman; Deniz Akduman; Hüsnü Tokgöz; Bülent Erol; Tuğrul Türker; Ferruh Ayoğlu; Necmettin Aydın Mungan
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-06-25       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Prostate biopsy: results and advantages of the transperineal approach--twenty-year experience of a single center.

Authors:  Pietro Pepe; Francesco Aragona
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Tolerance of pain during transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: risk factors.

Authors:  C Bastide; E Lechevallier; C Eghazarian; J C Ortega; C Coulange
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.554

5.  Comparison of local anesthesia techniques during transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies.

Authors:  Brian N Stirling; Kenneth F Shockley; George G Carothers; Thomas J Maatman
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Pain perception during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy: an objective analysis of local anesthesia use.

Authors:  B N Stirling; K F Shockley; G G Carothers; T J Maatman
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 7.  Update on prostate biopsy technique.

Authors:  Atsushi Ochiai; R Joseph Babaian
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.309

8.  Prostate Biopsy Complications: A Dual Analysis.

Authors:  Franklin Gaylis; Ryan Nasseri; Logan Fink; Renee Calabrese; Paul Dato; Edward Cohen
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Local anesthesia for pain control during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Pu Yan; Xiao-Yan Wang; Wei Huang; Yong Zhang
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 3.133

10.  Comparison between Ultrasound Guided Transperineal and Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective, Randomized, and Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Le-Hang Guo; Rong Wu; Hui-Xiong Xu; Jun-Mei Xu; Jian Wu; Shuai Wang; Xiao-Wan Bo; Bo-Ji Liu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  5 in total

1.  Efficacy of additional periprostatic apex nerve block on pain in each of 12 transrectal prostate core biopsies: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Jeong Woo Yoo; Kyo Chul Koo; Byung Ha Chung; Kwang Suk Lee
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2021-09-16       Impact factor: 2.264

2.  An evaluation of factors affecting pain during transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy: a real-life scenario in a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Oğuz Özden Cebeci; Alp Ozkan
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-09-06       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  Pain control according to the periprostatic nerve block site in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal targeted prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Jeong Woo Yoo; Kyo Chul Koo; Byung Ha Chung; Kwang Suk Lee
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Outcome of Patients With Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen and Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Receiving Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate.

Authors:  Hahn-Ey Lee; ByungWon Kim; Hyun Sik Yoon; Jungyo Suh; Seung-June Oh
Journal:  Int Neurourol J       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 3.038

5.  Pelvic Plexus Block Versus Periprostatic Nerve Block for Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Hui Ding; Zhongyun Ning; Hongwu Ma
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 6.244

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.