Efficacy and safety of a combined anesthetic technique for transrectal prostate biopsy: a single center, prospective, randomized study

J. Torres, A. Rodrigues, N. Morais*, S. Anacleto, R. Rodrigues, P. Mota, R. Leão, E. Lima
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of a combined anesthetic technique for transrectal prostate biopsy: a single center, prospective, randomized study","authors":"J. Torres, A. Rodrigues, N. Morais*, S. Anacleto, R. Rodrigues, P. Mota, R. Leão, E. Lima","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2019.1936","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction A transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosis of prostatic neoplasia. This exam is associated with pain and discomfort, and numerous methods of analgesia during this procedure have been described. There is still no consensus among urologists about the pain control technique that should be performed, even though the periprostatic basal nerve block is the most studied technique. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the benefit of adding local periapical prostatic anesthesia to the traditional periprostatic basal nerve block during TRUS biopsy. Material and methods A total of 70 patients with indication for TRUS biopsy were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized into 2 groups. Group 1 received a periprostatic basal nerve block. Group 2 received both periapical prostatic and periprostatic basal nerve blocks . The pain experienced during different moments of the procedure (introduction of the probe, anesthesia administration, removal of cores and 30 minutes after biopsy) was assessed using visual analog scales of one to ten. The rate of complications at 30 days post-biopsy was also assessed. Results The difference in pain during the distinct moments of the TRUS biopsy was not significant between the two groups. There were no significant differences concerning age, level of total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate volume in both groups. There were also no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the occurrence of complications and pathological findings. Conclusions The administration of concurent periprostatic basal and periapical nerve blocks has no significant benefits as compared to a periprostatic basal nerve block alone.","PeriodicalId":86295,"journal":{"name":"Urologia polska","volume":"72 1","pages":"258 - 262"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia polska","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2019.1936","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction A transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosis of prostatic neoplasia. This exam is associated with pain and discomfort, and numerous methods of analgesia during this procedure have been described. There is still no consensus among urologists about the pain control technique that should be performed, even though the periprostatic basal nerve block is the most studied technique. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the benefit of adding local periapical prostatic anesthesia to the traditional periprostatic basal nerve block during TRUS biopsy. Material and methods A total of 70 patients with indication for TRUS biopsy were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized into 2 groups. Group 1 received a periprostatic basal nerve block. Group 2 received both periapical prostatic and periprostatic basal nerve blocks . The pain experienced during different moments of the procedure (introduction of the probe, anesthesia administration, removal of cores and 30 minutes after biopsy) was assessed using visual analog scales of one to ten. The rate of complications at 30 days post-biopsy was also assessed. Results The difference in pain during the distinct moments of the TRUS biopsy was not significant between the two groups. There were no significant differences concerning age, level of total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate volume in both groups. There were also no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the occurrence of complications and pathological findings. Conclusions The administration of concurent periprostatic basal and periapical nerve blocks has no significant benefits as compared to a periprostatic basal nerve block alone.
经直肠前列腺活检联合麻醉技术的有效性和安全性:一项单中心、前瞻性、随机研究
经直肠超声引导(TRUS)活检是诊断前列腺肿瘤的金标准。该检查与疼痛和不适有关,并且在此过程中描述了许多镇痛方法。尽管前列腺周围基底神经阻滞是研究最多的技术,但泌尿科医生对应该采用的疼痛控制技术仍未达成共识。本研究的主要目的是评估在TRUS活检时,在传统的前列腺周围基底神经阻滞的基础上增加局部前列腺根尖周围麻醉的益处。材料与方法本研究共纳入70例具有truus活检指征的患者。患者随机分为两组。组1行前列腺周围基底神经阻滞。2组同时行前列腺根尖周围和前列腺周围基底神经阻滞。在手术的不同时刻(引入探针,麻醉,取出核心和活检后30分钟),疼痛经历用视觉模拟等级1到10进行评估。活检后30天的并发症发生率也被评估。结果两组在TRUS活检不同时刻的疼痛感差异无统计学意义。两组患者年龄、前列腺特异抗原(PSA)水平、前列腺体积差异无统计学意义。两组间并发症的发生及病理表现也无统计学差异。结论与单独应用前列腺周围基底神经阻滞相比,同时应用前列腺周围基底神经阻滞和根尖周围神经阻滞没有明显的疗效。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书