Intrarectal Lidocaine-Diltiazem-Meperidine Gel for Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy

The Effectiveness of Caudal Block with Low Doses of Dexmedetomidine and Pethidine in Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: Preliminary Results

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal block (CB) using dexmedetomidine and pethidine instead of local anesthesia (LA) for prostate needle biopsy and the effect of CB on urinary retention.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy (TRUS-Bx) was performed on 68 patients with a mean age of 65 ± 2.18 years. CB with a combination of dexmedetomidine and pethidine without LA was administered to the patients. The pain levels of the patients were determined using numeric rating scale (NRS) scores to evaluate the effectiveness of CB. Preoperative and postoperative postvoid residual urine volumes (PRUV) were also calculated.

RESULTS

The CB success rate was 93.15%. The NRS scores were 0.79 ± 0.19 and 0.89 ± 0.22 during probe entry and manipulation and biopsy, respectively, without any significant differences between them (p = 0.382). The mean PRUVs before and after biopsy did not differ significantly (41 ± 15.6 vs. 71.93 ± 22.3, p = 0.379). The degree of sedation, as assessed using the Ramsay scale, was 2 or 3 in all patients.

CONCLUSION

The combination of dexmedetomidine and pethidine for CB in TRUS-Bx provided quality analgesia for the patient and prevented the development of postoperative urinary retention.

Comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: A propensity score-matched study

This study compared the diagnostic efficacy of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy (TRBx) and transperineal prostate biopsy (TPBx) in patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). We enrolled 2962 men who underwent transrectal (n = 1216) or transperineal (n = 1746) systematic 12-core prostate biopsy. Clinical data including age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and prostate volume (PV) were recorded. To minimize confounding, we performed propensity score-matching analysis. We measured and compared PCa detection rates between TRBx and TPBx, which were stratified by clinical characteristics and Gleason scores. The effects of clinical characteristics on PCa detection rate were assessed by logistic regression. For all patients, TPBx detected a higher proportion of clinically significant PCa (P < 0.001). Logistic regression analyses illustrated that PV had a smaller impact on PCa detection rate of TPBx compared with TRBx. Propensity score-matching analysis showed that the detection rates in TRBx were higher than those in TPBx for patients aged >- 80 years (80.4% vs 56.5%, P = 0.004) and with PSA level 20.1-100.0 ng ml^-1 (80.8% vs 69.1%, P = 0.040). In conclusion, TPBx was associated with a higher detection rate of clinically significant PCa than TRBx was; however, because of the high detection rate at certain ages and PSA levels, biopsy approaches should be optimized according to patents' clinical characteristics.

Comparison of the Effect of Intra-Rectal Administration of Lidocaine Gel and Lidocaine Plus Fentanyl on Pain Reduction in Prostate Biopsy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of intra-rectal administration of lidocaine gel alone versus lidocaine gel plus topical fentanyl on pain reduction in prostate biopsy.

Methods

In a double-blind randomized clinical trial, 96 patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned into two groups. 1) The treatment group: Lidocaine gel (2%) 50 g and 2) the intervention group: Lidocaine gel (2%) 50 g and fentanyl gel 50 µg. During the prostate biopsy, the VAS score was recorded. Blood pressure, heart rate, and patient level of consciousness were also analyzed.

Results

The mean VAS score was 5.1 ± 2 and 3.0 ± 2, which was lower in the intervention group (P value < 0.001). In terms of consciousness after biopsy, there was no difference between the two groups (P value = 0.358). There was no difference between the groups in terms of mean blood pressure and heart rate before and during the prostate biopsy. Finally, in terms of consciousness after the prostate biopsy, there was no difference between the current treatment and intervention groups.

Conclusions

The combination of lidocaine gel and fentanyl with a dose of 50 µg has a significant effect on reducing the pain associated with prostate biopsy in comparison with lidocaine gel alone. The antinociceptive effect of the above regimens is not associated with hemodynamic changes and changes in patients' consciousness.