Benjamin Pradere1,2, Rajan Veeratterapillay3, Konstantinos Dimitropoulos4, Yuhong Yuan5, Muhammad Imran Omar6, Steven MacLennan7, Tommaso Cai8, Franck Bruyère1,2, Riccardo Bartoletti9, Bela Köves10, Florian Wagenlehner11, Gernot Bonkat12, Adrian Pilatz11. 1. Urologie, CHRU Bretonneau, Tours, France. 2. Université Francois Rabelais, PRES Centre Val de Loire, Tours, France. 3. Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 6. Guidelines Office, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands. 7. Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom. 8. Department of Urology, Santa Chiara, Reg. Hospital, Trento, Italy. 9. Department of Translational Research and New Technologies, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 10. Department of Urology, South-Pest Teaching Hospital, Budapest, Hungary. 11. Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany. 12. Alta Uro AG, Merian Iselin Klinik, Center of Biomechanics & Calorimetry, University Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We identify which nonantibiotic strategies could reduce the risk of infectious complications following prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a literature search on MEDLINE®, Embase® and the Cochrane Database for randomized controlled trials (inception to May 2020) assessing nonantibiotic interventions in prostate biopsy. Primary outcome was pooled infectious complications (fever, sepsis and symptomatic urinary tract infection) and secondary outcome was hospitalization. Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE approach were used to assess the bias and the certainty of evidence. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026354). RESULTS: A total of 90 randomized controlled trials (16,941 participants) were included in the analysis, with 83 trials being categorized into one of 10 different interventions. Transperineal biopsy was associated with significantly reduced infectious complications as compared to transrectal biopsy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.92, p=0.02, I2=0%, 1,330 participants, 7 studies). Rectal preparation with povidone-iodine was also shown to reduce infectious complications (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.65, p <0.000001, I2=27%, 1,686 participants, 8 studies) as well as hospitalization (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.69, p=0.002, I2=0%, 620 participants, 4 studies). We found no difference in infectious complications/hospitalization for 6 other interventions, ie number of biopsy cores, periprostatic nerve block, number of injections for periprostatic nerve block, needle guide type, needle type and rectal preparation with enema. In 2 interventions (needle diameter, rectal preparation with chlorhexidine) meta-analysis was not possible. Finally, 7 studies had unique interventions. The certainty of evidence was rated as low/very low for all interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal biopsy significantly reduces infectious complications compared to transrectal biopsy and should therefore be preferred. If transrectal biopsy is performed, rectal preparation with povidone-iodine is highly recommended. The other investigated nonantibiotic strategies did not significantly influence infection and hospitalization after prostate biopsy.
PURPOSE: We identify which nonantibiotic strategies could reduce the risk of infectious complications following prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a literature search on MEDLINE®, Embase® and the Cochrane Database for randomized controlled trials (inception to May 2020) assessing nonantibiotic interventions in prostate biopsy. Primary outcome was pooled infectious complications (fever, sepsis and symptomatic urinary tract infection) and secondary outcome was hospitalization. Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE approach were used to assess the bias and the certainty of evidence. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026354). RESULTS: A total of 90 randomized controlled trials (16,941 participants) were included in the analysis, with 83 trials being categorized into one of 10 different interventions. Transperineal biopsy was associated with significantly reduced infectious complications as compared to transrectal biopsy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.92, p=0.02, I2=0%, 1,330 participants, 7 studies). Rectal preparation with povidone-iodine was also shown to reduce infectious complications (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.65, p <0.000001, I2=27%, 1,686 participants, 8 studies) as well as hospitalization (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.69, p=0.002, I2=0%, 620 participants, 4 studies). We found no difference in infectious complications/hospitalization for 6 other interventions, ie number of biopsy cores, periprostatic nerve block, number of injections for periprostatic nerve block, needle guide type, needle type and rectal preparation with enema. In 2 interventions (needle diameter, rectal preparation with chlorhexidine) meta-analysis was not possible. Finally, 7 studies had unique interventions. The certainty of evidence was rated as low/very low for all interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal biopsy significantly reduces infectious complications compared to transrectal biopsy and should therefore be preferred. If transrectal biopsy is performed, rectal preparation with povidone-iodine is highly recommended. The other investigated nonantibiotic strategies did not significantly influence infection and hospitalization after prostate biopsy.
Authors: Spyridon P Basourakos; Mark N Alshak; Patrick J Lewicki; Emily Cheng; Michael Tzeng; Antonio P DeRosa; Mathew J Allaway; Ashley E Ross; Edward M Schaeffer; Hiten D Patel; Jim C Hu; Michael A Gorin Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-01-29