Okan Derin1, Limírio Fonseca2, Rafael Sanchez-Salas3, Matthew J Roberts4,5,6. 1. International School of Medicine, Medipol Mega Hospital, Istanbul Medipol University, Bagcilar, 34214, Istanbul, Turkey. oderin@medipol.edu.tr. 2. Hospital das Clinicas da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Urology, L'Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France. 4. Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 5. Centre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 6. Nepean Urology Research Group, Kingswood, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate biopsy is a standard tool for diagnosing prostate cancer, with more than 4 million procedures performed worldwide each year. Infectious complications and economic burden are reportedly rising with continued use of trans-rectal ultrasound-guided biopsy, despite the transperineal approach being associated with less infectious complications. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: In this review, the contemporary literature on pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors, causative organisms and emerging approaches for prevention of infectious complications are outlined. RESULTS: Management of infectious complications after TRUSB has caused significant financial burden on health systems. The most frequent causative agents of infectious complications after prostate biopsy are Gram-negative bacilli are particularly concerning in the era of antibiotic resistance. Increasing resistance to fluoroquinolones and beta-lactam antibiotics has complicated traditional preventive measures. Patient- and procedure-related risk factors, reported by individual studies, can contribute to infectious complications after prostate biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Recent literature shows that the transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy results in higher infectious complication rate than the transperineal prostate biopsy. NAATs, recently introduced technique to detect FQr may detect all antibiotic-resistant rectal microbiota members-included MDRs-although the technique still has limitations and economical burdens. Transient solutions are escalating antibiotic prophylaxis and widening the indications for TPB.
BACKGROUND: Prostate biopsy is a standard tool for diagnosing prostate cancer, with more than 4 million procedures performed worldwide each year. Infectious complications and economic burden are reportedly rising with continued use of trans-rectal ultrasound-guided biopsy, despite the transperineal approach being associated with less infectious complications. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: In this review, the contemporary literature on pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors, causative organisms and emerging approaches for prevention of infectious complications are outlined. RESULTS: Management of infectious complications after TRUSB has caused significant financial burden on health systems. The most frequent causative agents of infectious complications after prostate biopsy are Gram-negative bacilli are particularly concerning in the era of antibiotic resistance. Increasing resistance to fluoroquinolones and beta-lactam antibiotics has complicated traditional preventive measures. Patient- and procedure-related risk factors, reported by individual studies, can contribute to infectious complications after prostate biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Recent literature shows that the transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy results in higher infectious complication rate than the transperineal prostate biopsy. NAATs, recently introduced technique to detect FQr may detect all antibiotic-resistant rectal microbiota members-included MDRs-although the technique still has limitations and economical burdens. Transient solutions are escalating antibiotic prophylaxis and widening the indications for TPB.
Authors: Matthew J Roberts; Harrison Y Bennett; Patrick N Harris; Michael Holmes; Jeremy Grummet; Kurt Naber; Florian M E Wagenlehner Journal: Urology Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Lana Pepdjonovic; Guan Hee Tan; Sean Huang; Sarah Mann; Mark Frydenberg; Daniel Moon; Uri Hanegbi; Adam Landau; Ross Snow; Jeremy Grummet Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Michael A Liss; Behfar Ehdaie; Stacy Loeb; Maxwell V Meng; Jay D Raman; Vanessa Spears; Sean P Stroup Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Florian M E Wagenlehner; Edgar van Oostrum; Peter Tenke; Zafer Tandogdu; Mete Çek; Magnus Grabe; Björn Wullt; Robert Pickard; Kurt G Naber; Adrian Pilatz; Wolfgang Weidner; Truls E Bjerklund-Johansen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel Olvera-Posada; Blayne Welk; J Andrew McClure; Jennifer Winick-Ng; Jonathan I Izawa; Stephen E Pautler Journal: Urology Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Keiran D Clement; Lizzy Day; Helen Rooney; Matt Neilson; Fiona Birrell; Mark Salji; Elizabeth Norman; Ross Clark; Amit Patel; John Morrison; Hing Y Leung Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2021 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.285