[MRI-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Under Local Anaesthesia Patient-Reported and Biopsy Outcomes: A Single Centre Cohort Study].

Q4 Medicine
Urologiia Pub Date : 2024-09-01
G Khairul-Asri M, E A Jaharudin M, Khor V Khor V, R Yusof M, F Mohamad Sharin M, Jagwani A Jagwani A, Y Lee F, S K Lee C, Fahmy O Fahmy O
{"title":"[MRI-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Under Local Anaesthesia Patient-Reported and Biopsy Outcomes: A Single Centre Cohort Study].","authors":"G Khairul-Asri M, E A Jaharudin M, Khor V Khor V, R Yusof M, F Mohamad Sharin M, Jagwani A Jagwani A, Y Lee F, S K Lee C, Fahmy O Fahmy O","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the tolerability and feasibility of transrectal(TR) versus transperineal (TP) routes for prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia(LA). To assess the functional outcome and the complication of both procedures.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>s. A prospective cohort observational study was performed on patients who underwent prostate biopsy under LA. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used during the procedure. International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile dysfunction (IIEF) were assessed before the procedure and in 14 days after the procedure. Complication for each procedure was recorded.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>A total of 128 patients with 64 patients for each group underwent prostate biopsy by TP and TR under LA. TP targeted biopsy group had comparable pain scores to those who underwent the procedure using the TR routes. The median pain score for the TP group was 2 and TR was 3, (IQR=2, range 0-10 for both groups)with no significant pain difference between both groups (P=0.48). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in urinary function(p=0.68) and sexual function (p=0.19) between the two groups post-procedure. Both groups have similar rates of complications, with no significant difference observed. Urinary tract infection incidents that did occur were rare and did not significantly differ between the groups (p=0.21). None of the patients experienced sepsis postoperatively. AUR was reported in both groups, slightly higher with 9.4%(N=6) in the TP group and 6.3%(N=4) in the TR group however no significant difference(p=0.112) was noted. Haematuria is common in both groups with TP (66%) and TR (59%) but self-limiting with Clavien-Dindo grade I without significant difference (p=0.589).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results showed that both Transperineal and transrectal approaches have similar tolerability with no significant difference in functional outcome or complications. Further studies are mandatory to verify our results.</p>","PeriodicalId":23546,"journal":{"name":"Urologiia","volume":" 4","pages":"87-93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologiia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the tolerability and feasibility of transrectal(TR) versus transperineal (TP) routes for prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia(LA). To assess the functional outcome and the complication of both procedures.

Method: s. A prospective cohort observational study was performed on patients who underwent prostate biopsy under LA. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used during the procedure. International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile dysfunction (IIEF) were assessed before the procedure and in 14 days after the procedure. Complication for each procedure was recorded.

Result: A total of 128 patients with 64 patients for each group underwent prostate biopsy by TP and TR under LA. TP targeted biopsy group had comparable pain scores to those who underwent the procedure using the TR routes. The median pain score for the TP group was 2 and TR was 3, (IQR=2, range 0-10 for both groups)with no significant pain difference between both groups (P=0.48). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in urinary function(p=0.68) and sexual function (p=0.19) between the two groups post-procedure. Both groups have similar rates of complications, with no significant difference observed. Urinary tract infection incidents that did occur were rare and did not significantly differ between the groups (p=0.21). None of the patients experienced sepsis postoperatively. AUR was reported in both groups, slightly higher with 9.4%(N=6) in the TP group and 6.3%(N=4) in the TR group however no significant difference(p=0.112) was noted. Haematuria is common in both groups with TP (66%) and TR (59%) but self-limiting with Clavien-Dindo grade I without significant difference (p=0.589).

Conclusion: Our results showed that both Transperineal and transrectal approaches have similar tolerability with no significant difference in functional outcome or complications. Further studies are mandatory to verify our results.

[局部麻醉下核磁共振成像-超声波融合靶向经会阴前列腺活检术的患者报告和活检结果:单中心队列研究]。
目的比较经直肠(TR)和经会阴(TP)途径在局部麻醉(LA)下进行前列腺活检的耐受性和可行性。对在局部麻醉(LA)下接受前列腺活检的患者进行前瞻性队列观察研究。手术过程中使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)。术前和术后 14 天评估国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)和国际勃起功能障碍指数(IIEF)。记录每次手术的并发症:共有128名患者(每组64人)在LA下接受了TP和TR前列腺活检。TP靶向活检组患者的疼痛评分与TR途径的患者相当。TP组的中位疼痛评分为2分,TR组为3分(IQR=2,两组疼痛评分范围均为0-10分),两组疼痛评分无明显差异(P=0.48)。此外,两组术后排尿功能(P=0.68)和性功能(P=0.19)无明显差异。两组的并发症发生率相似,无明显差异。发生尿路感染的情况很少,两组之间没有明显差异(P=0.21)。没有一名患者在术后出现败血症。两组均有 AUR 报告,TP 组为 9.4%(6 例),TR 组为 6.3%(4 例),略高一些,但无明显差异(P=0.112)。血尿在两组中都很常见,TP 组(66%)和 TR 组(59%)均为自限性血尿,为 Clavien-Dindo I 级,无明显差异(P=0.589):我们的研究结果表明,经会阴和经直肠两种方法的耐受性相似,在功能结果或并发症方面无明显差异。为了验证我们的结果,有必要开展进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urologiia
Urologiia Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
160
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信