A comparison of pain control and complications using three different ways of anesthesia in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy

Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsy

Objectives

Fusion prostate biopsy (FPB) has recently emerged as a popular and successful biopsy technique on diagnosis of prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the pain levels in TRUS-guided standard 12-core prostate biopsy (SPB) and MpMRI-guided FPB.

Materials and Methods

Patients detected with a PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) ≥3 lesion on MpMRI underwent MpMRI-guided FPB (Group I) and the patients who had no suspected lesions or had a PI-RADS <3 lesion on MpMRI underwent TRUS-guided SPB (Group II). Pain assessment was performed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) five minutes after the procedure. Following the procedure, the patients were asked to indicate the most painful biopsy step among the three steps.

Results

252 patients were included in this study (Group I=159, Group II=93). The mean number of cores and the malignancy detection rate were significantly higher in Group I compared to Group II (p <0.001, p=0.043, respectively). No significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to VAS scores (p=0.070). The most painful part of the whole procedure was revealed to be the insertion of the probe into the rectum. However, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to the most painful biopsy step (p=0.140).

Conclusion

FPB, with a relatively higher cancer detection rate, leads to the same pain level as SPB although it increases the number of biopsy cores and involves a more complex procedure compared to SPB. Further prospective studies with larger patient series are needed to substantiate our findings.

What is the most effective local anesthesia for transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy of the prostate? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 47 randomized clinical trials

We aimed to compare the effectiveness of various local anesthetic methods for controlling prostate biopsy (PBx) related pain using network meta-analysis. Literature searches were performed on PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to March 2018. Forty-seven randomized controlled trials, in which the effectiveness of PBx-related pain was investigated using a visual analogue scale after various local anesthetic methods, were included. The local anesthetic methods included intraprostatic local anesthesia (IPLA), intrarectal local anesthesia (IRLA), intravenous sedation (IVS), periprostatic nerve block (PNB), pelvic plexus block (PPB), and spinal anesthesia (SPA). Eight pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses with 21 comparisons were performed. All modalities, except single use of IPLA and IRLA, were more effective than placebo. Our results demonstrate that PNB + IVS (rank 1) and SPA (rank 2) were the most effective methods for pain control. The followings are in order of PPB + IRLA, PNB + IPLA, PPB, PNB + IRLA, IVS, and PNB. In conclusion, the most effective way to alleviate PBx-related pain appears to be PNB + IVS and SPA. However, a potential increase in medical cost and additional risk of morbidities should be considered. In the current outpatient setting, PPB + IRLA, PNB + IPLA, PPB, PNB + IRLA, and PNB methods are potentially more acceptable options.