Badar M Mian1, Ronald P Kaufman2, Hugh A G Fisher2. 1. Division of Urology, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA. mianb@amc.edu. 2. Division of Urology, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rrisk of infection and hospitalization after transrectal prostate biopsy (TRBx) has been increasing worldwide. Several modified antibiotic regimens have met with variable success in preventing such infections. Transperineal prostate biopsy (TPBx) is increasingly recommended as the preferred alternative due to a potentially lower risk of post-biopsy infections. Aim of this review is to define the magnitude of post-biopsy complications and the effectiveness of preventive strategies, including TPBx approach. METHODS: We performed a focused review of literature on infectious complications after TRBx and detailed the use of various preventive measures. We summarized the effectiveness of several preventive measures, including TPBx, and outlined the inconsistencies in reported outcomes. We identified potential barriers to the uptake of TPBx, including the gap in knowledge such as lack of high-quality evidence. RESULTS: Several antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, including targeted and augmented, have been utilized for TRBx without demonstrating a clearly superior regimen. Of the non-antibiotic preventive measure, povidone-iodine rectal prep appears to be most effective strategy. Several single-arm cohort studies have reported very low rates of infections after TPBx and demonstrated the feasibility of an office-based procedure. However, barriers to the adoption of TPBx exist including retrospective data, and conflicting results showing minimal reduction in complications with increased burden of resource utilization. Presently, there are no randomized studies comparing the infectious complications after TRBx and TPBx. We discuss the rationale and protocol for a randomized controlled trial to determine the comparative effectiveness of biopsy techniques. CONCLUSIONS: TPBx approach has the potential to lower the rate of post-biopsy infections and hospitalizations. However, there are several barriers to widespread adoption of this approach including inconsistencies in reported outcomes and lack of Level-1 evidence. Randomized controlled studies are required to directly compare the infectious complications associated with each biopsy procedure.
BACKGROUND: Rrisk of infection and hospitalization after transrectal prostate biopsy (TRBx) has been increasing worldwide. Several modified antibiotic regimens have met with variable success in preventing such infections. Transperineal prostate biopsy (TPBx) is increasingly recommended as the preferred alternative due to a potentially lower risk of post-biopsy infections. Aim of this review is to define the magnitude of post-biopsy complications and the effectiveness of preventive strategies, including TPBx approach. METHODS: We performed a focused review of literature on infectious complications after TRBx and detailed the use of various preventive measures. We summarized the effectiveness of several preventive measures, including TPBx, and outlined the inconsistencies in reported outcomes. We identified potential barriers to the uptake of TPBx, including the gap in knowledge such as lack of high-quality evidence. RESULTS: Several antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, including targeted and augmented, have been utilized for TRBx without demonstrating a clearly superior regimen. Of the non-antibiotic preventive measure, povidone-iodine rectal prep appears to be most effective strategy. Several single-arm cohort studies have reported very low rates of infections after TPBx and demonstrated the feasibility of an office-based procedure. However, barriers to the adoption of TPBx exist including retrospective data, and conflicting results showing minimal reduction in complications with increased burden of resource utilization. Presently, there are no randomized studies comparing the infectious complications after TRBx and TPBx. We discuss the rationale and protocol for a randomized controlled trial to determine the comparative effectiveness of biopsy techniques. CONCLUSIONS: TPBx approach has the potential to lower the rate of post-biopsy infections and hospitalizations. However, there are several barriers to widespread adoption of this approach including inconsistencies in reported outcomes and lack of Level-1 evidence. Randomized controlled studies are required to directly compare the infectious complications associated with each biopsy procedure.
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: Vassilios M Skouteris; E David Crawford; Vladimir Mouraviev; Paul Arangua; Marios Panagiotis Metsinis; Michael Skouteris; George Zacharopoulos; Nelson N Stone Journal: Rev Urol Date: 2018
Authors: Paul C Moldovan; Thomas Van den Broeck; Richard Sylvester; Lorenzo Marconi; Joaquim Bellmunt; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Theo H van der Kwast; Vsevolod B Matveev; Henk G van der Poel; Maria De Santis; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Cathy Yuhong Yuan; Philip Cornford; Nicolas Mottet; Thomas B Lam; Olivier Rouvière Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marc A Bjurlin; H Ballentine Carter; Paul Schellhammer; Michael S Cookson; Leonard G Gomella; Dean Troyer; Thomas M Wheeler; Steven Schlossberg; David F Penson; Samir S Taneja Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ho Seok Chung; Eu Chang Hwang; Ho Song Yu; Seung Il Jung; Sun Ju Lee; Dong Hoon Lim; Won Jin Cho; Hyun Sop Choe; Seung-Ju Lee; Sung Woon Park Journal: Int J Urol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 3.369
Authors: Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Antti S Rannikko; Marcelo Borghi; Valeria Panebianco; Lance A Mynderse; Markku H Vaarala; Alberto Briganti; Lars Budäus; Giles Hellawell; Richard G Hindley; Monique J Roobol; Scott Eggener; Maneesh Ghei; Arnauld Villers; Franck Bladou; Geert M Villeirs; Jaspal Virdi; Silvan Boxler; Grégoire Robert; Paras B Singh; Wulphert Venderink; Boris A Hadaschik; Alain Ruffion; Jim C Hu; Daniel Margolis; Sébastien Crouzet; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Peter Pinto; Inderbir Gill; Clare Allen; Francesco Giganti; Alex Freeman; Stephen Morris; Shonit Punwani; Norman R Williams; Chris Brew-Graves; Jonathan Deeks; Yemisi Takwoingi; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-03-18 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Maurizio Del Monte; Stefano Cipollari; Francesco Del Giudice; Martina Pecoraro; Marco Bicchetti; Emanuele Messina; Ailin Dehghanpour; Antonio Ciardi; Alessandro Sciarra; Carlo Catalano; Valeria Panebianco Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 3.039