The Efficacy of Transperineal Drainage for Treating Prostatic Abscess: A Comparative Analysis Against Conservative Management.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q3 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Prostate Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-02 DOI:10.1002/pros.24922
Sung Goo Yoon, Tae Il Noh, Ji Sung Shim, Min Gu Park, Seok Ho Kang, Sung Gu Kang
{"title":"The Efficacy of Transperineal Drainage for Treating Prostatic Abscess: A Comparative Analysis Against Conservative Management.","authors":"Sung Goo Yoon, Tae Il Noh, Ji Sung Shim, Min Gu Park, Seok Ho Kang, Sung Gu Kang","doi":"10.1002/pros.24922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prostatic abscess (PA) is an uncommon but serious urological condition requiring immediate intervention. Both drainage and conservative treatment are feasible because there are currently no well-established treatment guidelines. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and mortality rates between patients who underwent transperineal prostatic abscess drainage (TPAD) and those who underwent conservative management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed 41 patients diagnosed with PA using computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and transrectal ultrasonography between December 2021 and July 2024. The patients underwent either TPAD or conservative management. Conservative management consisted of intravenous antibiotics as the mainstay of therapy, whereas the intervention group received TPAD in addition to antibiotic therapy. TPAD was performed under local anesthesia with the patient in the lithotomy position. All patients were discharged after the normalization of inflammatory markers and body temperature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the initial total of 41 patients, 6 were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. Among the remaining 35 enrolled patients, 18 underwent TPAD and 17 received conservative management. There were no significant differences in age, number of comorbidities, or prostate-specific antigen levels between the two groups; however, the TPAD group exhibited a significantly larger abscess size (p = 0.000), shorter hospital stay (p = 0.041), and lower mortality (p = 0.045).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the absence of standardized treatment guidelines, TPAD which can be easily implemented, is considered a favorable treatment method that can reduce the length of hospital stay, recurrence rates, and mortality rates compared with conservative treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":54544,"journal":{"name":"Prostate","volume":" ","pages":"1161-1167"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prostate","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24922","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Prostatic abscess (PA) is an uncommon but serious urological condition requiring immediate intervention. Both drainage and conservative treatment are feasible because there are currently no well-established treatment guidelines. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and mortality rates between patients who underwent transperineal prostatic abscess drainage (TPAD) and those who underwent conservative management.

Methods: We analyzed 41 patients diagnosed with PA using computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and transrectal ultrasonography between December 2021 and July 2024. The patients underwent either TPAD or conservative management. Conservative management consisted of intravenous antibiotics as the mainstay of therapy, whereas the intervention group received TPAD in addition to antibiotic therapy. TPAD was performed under local anesthesia with the patient in the lithotomy position. All patients were discharged after the normalization of inflammatory markers and body temperature.

Results: Of the initial total of 41 patients, 6 were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. Among the remaining 35 enrolled patients, 18 underwent TPAD and 17 received conservative management. There were no significant differences in age, number of comorbidities, or prostate-specific antigen levels between the two groups; however, the TPAD group exhibited a significantly larger abscess size (p = 0.000), shorter hospital stay (p = 0.041), and lower mortality (p = 0.045).

Conclusions: In the absence of standardized treatment guidelines, TPAD which can be easily implemented, is considered a favorable treatment method that can reduce the length of hospital stay, recurrence rates, and mortality rates compared with conservative treatment.

经会阴引流术治疗前列腺脓肿与保守治疗的比较分析。
背景:前列腺脓肿(PA)是一种罕见但严重的泌尿系统疾病,需要立即干预。引流和保守治疗都是可行的,因为目前没有完善的治疗指南。本研究旨在比较经会阴前列腺脓肿引流术(TPAD)和保守治疗患者的临床结果和死亡率。方法:我们分析了2021年12月至2024年7月期间通过计算机断层扫描、磁共振成像和经直肠超声检查诊断为PA的41例患者。患者接受TPAD或保守治疗。保守治疗以静脉注射抗生素为主,干预组在抗生素治疗的基础上给予TPAD治疗。TPAD在局部麻醉下,患者取取取石位。所有患者炎症指标及体温恢复正常后出院。结果:在最初的41例患者中,根据排除标准排除了6例。在其余35例入组患者中,18例接受TPAD治疗,17例接受保守治疗。两组患者在年龄、合并症数量或前列腺特异性抗原水平上无显著差异;然而,TPAD组脓肿面积明显增大(p = 0.000),住院时间明显缩短(p = 0.041),死亡率明显降低(p = 0.045)。结论:在缺乏标准化治疗指南的情况下,与保守治疗相比,易于实施的TPAD是一种较好的治疗方法,可减少住院时间、复发率和死亡率。
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
Prostate
Prostate 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.60%
发文量
180
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The Prostate is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to original studies of this organ and the male accessory glands. It serves as an international medium for these studies, presenting comprehensive coverage of clinical, anatomic, embryologic, physiologic, endocrinologic, and biochemical studies.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信