Periprostatic local anesthesia before ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: an update of the miami experience

INTRODUCTION: Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy is a very common office procedure for most urologists. Pain or discomfort associated with this procedure has been addressed recently by the use of periprostatic local anesthesia. We re-address this issue with an update of our experience and emphasize the crucial steps that contribute to the success of the technique. We also analyzed the subsequent intraoperative effects of injecting lidocaine into the area of the neurovascular bundles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between June 1999 and December 2000, 200 patients underwent TRUS-guided biopsies of the prostate. Patients were properly consented and subjected to the procedure using periprostatic nerve block with 10 cm3 of 1% plain lidocaine. An 'ultrasonographic wheal' was created between the rectal wall and the posterior aspect of the prostate and three or four different locations along the neurovascular bundles. Pain scores were evaluated with the visual analogue scale. RESULTS: TRUS biopsy of the prostate was performed in 200 consecutive patients using periprostatic local anesthesia, 40 patients (20%) had undergone previous prostate biopsy without anesthesia. The age of patients ranged from 44 to 75 years (mean 67). The number of biopsies ranged from 6 to 14. Mean time from introduction of the probe per rectum to the end of the procedure was 18 min. There were no instances of clinical infection, significant bleeding, urinary retention, diaphoresis or hypotension. The visual analogue scale ranged from 1 to 3 (mean 2). Intraoperative findings in 62 patients who subsequently underwent nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy were no different from the patients who had biopsies without a local anesthetic. CONCLUSION: TRUS-guided biopsy of the prostate is the procedure of choice for diagnosing prostate cancer. This procedure can be accomplished with minimal pain with the use of periprostatic local anesthesia. It is an easy, safe, acceptable and reproducible technique that we believe should be considered for all patients undergoing TRUS biopsy regardless of age or number of biopsies.     

Effect of periprostatic nerve blockade before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy on patient comfort: A randomized placebo controlled study

BACKGROUND: In the present study, we assessed the efficacy and morbidity of periprostatic local anesthesia before transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy of the prostate. METHODS: From August 2001 to February 2002, 98 patients underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy at the Department of 2nd Urology, Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. Ninety patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were randomized into three groups of 30 patients each. Group 1 received no local anesthesia, while group 2 received a periprostatic saline injection 5 min before the biopsy and group 3 received periprostatic local anesthesia with 1% lidocaine. Pain-scale responses were analyzed for each aspect of the biopsy procedure using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: There were no differences in pain scores between the three groups during digital rectal examination, intramuscular injection and probe insertion. Mean pain scores during needle insertion in groups 1, 2 and 3 were 5.65 +/- 2.35, 6.25 +/- 2.04 and 3.16 +/- 2.14, respectively. There was no significant difference between the pain scores of groups 1 and 2, whereas pain scores decreased significantly in group 3. CONCLUSION: Periprostatic local anesthesia before prostate biopsy is a safe and easy method to increase patient comfort during the procedure.     

Periprostatic nerve blockade before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: the Ankara Numune experience

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and morbidity of periprostatic local anesthesia before transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. METHODS: From August 2001 to December 2001, 58 patients underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy at the 2nd Department of Urology, Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital. Fifty patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were randomized into 2 groups of 25 patients each. Group 1 received periprostatic local anesthesia with 1% lidocaine while group 2 received no local anesthesia. Pain scale responses were analyzed for each aspect of the biopsy procedure with a visual analog scale. RESULTS: There was no difference between the 2 groups in pain scores during digital rectal examination, intramuscular injection and probe insertion. The mean pain scores during needle insertion in group 1 receiving periprostatic nerve block and in group 2 receiving no local anesthesia were 3.00 +/- 2.22 and 6.16 +/- 2.85, respectively, and were found to be significantly different (p < 0.001), but morbidity after the biopsy was not statistically different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Periprostatic local anesthesia before prostate biopsy is a safe and easy method to increase patient comfort during the procedure.     

Local anesthesia for ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized trial comparing 2 methods

PURPOSE: Since the introduction of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening, asymptomatic men often undergo transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. This procedure may cause significant discomfort, which may limit the number of biopsies. We performed a randomized prospective study to compare periprostatic infiltration with 1% lidocaine with intrarectal instillation of 2% lidocaine gel before prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October 1999 to July 2000, 150 men underwent prostate biopsy at the Miami Veterans Administration and Jackson Memorial Hospital. Experienced senior residents performed all biopsies. Patients were randomized into 2 groups depending on the method of anesthetic delivery. A visual analog scale was used to assess the pain score. Statistical analysis of pain scores was performed using the Student t test. RESULTS: Ultrasound guided prostate biopsy was done in 150 cases. There was a statistical difference in the mean pain score after periprostatic infiltration and intrarectal instillation (2.4 versus 3.7, p = 0.00002) with patients receiving periprostatic infiltration reporting significantly less pain. CONCLUSIONS: Men should have the opportunity to receive local anesthesia before ultrasound guided prostate biopsy with the goal of decreasing the discomfort associated with this procedure. Our prospective randomized study indicates that ultrasound guided periprostatic nerve block with 1% lidocaine provides anesthesia superior to the intrarectal placement of lidocaine gel.     

Transrectal periprostatic lidocaine injection anesthesia for transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective study

Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy remains the mainstay of the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Although this diagnostic method is a safe procedure and well tolerated by most patients a significant number of patients report discomfort and pain during prostate biopsy. In order to define the best method of anesthesia, many studies, in which different methods were compared, have been performed. To determine the effectiveness of local injection anesthesia in TRUS-guided prostate biopsy, we designed and performed this prospective study in order to evaluate the utility of periprostatic nerve block for pain management. A total of 100 patients who had elevated total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) and/or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) were included in this study. Half of the patients received periprostatic injection anesthesia (group I) and the remaining half received placebo (group II). Patients received 10 cm3 (5 cm3 each side) 1% lidocaine injected into the periprostatic nerve plexus under transrectal ultrasonic guidance. Pain during biopsy was assessed using a 10-point modified visual analog scale (VAS). In groups I and II, mean patient age was 66.8+2.5 and 65.6+11.5 y, mean tPSA was 7.87+/-3.6 and 11.3+/-1.7 ng/ml, mean biopsy duration was 6.5+/-2.5 and 6.6+/-2.2 min and mean pain score during TRUS-guided biopsy was 1.46+/-2.2 and 4.5+/-2.1, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed with respect to age, tPSA and mean biopsy duration between these groups. Mean pain VAS score was statistically or significantly better (P=0.0001) in the lidocaine injection group (group I), and furthermore no patient had a VAS pain score > or =5 in this group. Only minor and transient complications occurred in both groups. This study reinforces the usage of periprostatic nerve block as a standard method of pain management during TRUS-guided prostate biopsy, because it is simple, safe, uncostly and significantly effective without requiring additional time.     

Effect of intraprostatic local anesthesia during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: comparison of 3 methods in a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial

PURPOSE: We evaluated the effect of intracapsular anesthesia and periprostatic nerve block during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study 152 consecutive patients were randomized into 3 groups. Group 1 of 41 patients was administered intraprostatic local anesthesia into the right and left sides with a total of 2 ml 1% lidocaine and a periprostatic injection of 2 ml saline later. Group 2 of 49 patients was administered intraprostatic injection of 2 ml saline, followed by periprostatic local anesthesia with 2 ml 1% lidocaine. Group 3 of 62 patients received intraprostatic and periprostatic local anesthesia with 2 ml 1% lidocaine. Patients were asked to grade the pain level using a 10-point linear visual analog pain scale 1) when the transrectal ultrasound probe was inserted, 2) during anesthesia, 3) during biopsy and 4) 20 minutes after biopsy. One-way ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis test with the Tukey post hoc test were used to compare patient characteristics and pain scale responses among the 3 groups. RESULTS: No major complications, including sepsis and severe rectal bleeding, were noted in any patient. There were statistically significant differences in pain scores among groups 1 to 3 during anesthesia (mean +/- SD 5.6 +/- 2.5, 6.7 +/- 2.3 and 4.9 +/- 2.1, p = 0.003) and during biopsy (4.3 +/- 2.7, 4.5 +/- 2.6 and 2.7 +/- 2.1, respectively, p = 0.032). There were no differences in pain scores among the 3 groups during probe insertion (p = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: A combination of intracapsular anesthesia and periprostatic nerve block is an effective and useful technique that is well tolerated by the patient. It decreases the level of pain and discomfort associated with the prostatic biopsy procedure.     

Periprostatic local anesthesia before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy

PURPOSE: We prospectively assessed the safety and efficacy of periprostatic local anesthesia before transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 178 consecutive men undergoing transrectal prostate biopsy at our institution were enrolled in this study. From January to June 2001, 84 men underwent prostate biopsy without anesthesia (control group). From July to December 2001, 94 men received local anesthesia before prostate biopsies (anesthesia group). A 5-ml dose of 1% lidocaine was injected into the periprostatic nerve plexus on each side via a 22 gauge needle at 3 minutes before the procedure. Pain during and after biopsy was assessed using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS). Complications were evaluated with a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: The average pain score during biopsy was 3.18 in the anesthesia group versus 4.16 in the control group (p = 0.0067), while average pain score on the next day was 2.12 and 2.25, respectively (p = 0.7451). In the anesthesia group 13% of patients had a pain score > 5 versus 34% in the control group (p = 0.0043). The complication rate showed no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Periprostatic lidocaine injection is a safe and effective method of anesthesia for transrectal prostate biopsy.     

Is the pain level of patients affected by anxiety during transrectal prostate needle biopsy?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of anxiety on the pain level of patients during transrectal prostate needle biopsy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 160 consecutive patients underwent prostate biopsy. Group 1 consisted of 86 patients who received bilateral periprostatic infiltration of 5 cm(3) of 2% lidocaine. Group 2 included 74 patients and they received bilateral periprostatic infiltration of 5 cm(3) of 0.9% saline solution. The Stait-Trait Anxiety Inventory was administered before the biopsy. The patients' mean pain scores were assessed by means of a visual analog scale (VAS) during digital rectal examination, probe insertion and biopsy. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 67.8 years (range 46-79 years). When the two groups were compared regarding the level of pain during DRE and probe insertion, no significant differences were found. The mean VAS score for biopsy was significantly lower in Group 1. In Group 1, the mean VAS scores were similar in patients with no and moderate trait anxiety levels. However, the mean VAS score was significantly higher in patients who had severe trait anxiety than in the others (p=0.002). In Group 2, the differences in VAS scores reached statistical significance between no and moderate, no and severe, and moderate and severe trait anxiety levels (p=0.001). When the state anxiety levels were considered, the mean VAS scores were significantly higher in patients with severe state anxiety scores in Groups 1 and 2 (p=0.003 and 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: We found a significant relationship between trait and state anxiety levels and pain scores in patients who underwent transrectal prostate needle biopsy.     

Transrectal prostate biopsy: effective anesthesia, complications, and influence on clinical outcome after radical prostatectomy

The aim of the study was to evaluate the best anesthesia for transrectal prostate biopsy, the complications after biopsy, and the influence of the biopsy on the clinical outcome after radical prostatectomy. The analysis included 1,383 patients after radical prostatectomy. With respect to compliance the biopsy should be performed under anesthesia. The most efficient procedure for pain reduction is analgosedation. Periprostatic local anesthetic in combination with the application of a lidocaine-containing jelly is in alternative use. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be given in consideration of possible antibiotic resistance due to recently administered antibiotic therapy. The percentage of R1 resection is higher if only one prostate biopsy can detect the carcinoma and leads immediately to radical prostatectomy. When several biopsies are necessary to detect the carcinoma the percentage of R1 resection is lower. Repeated prostate biopsies have no effect on the patients?? outcome after radical prostatectomy. The best time for radical prostatectomy in relation to urinary incontinence is 8 weeks after prostate biopsy.     

Comparison of traditional basal and apical periprostatic block: impact on injection pain and biopsy pain

OBJECTIVE: To compare the pain of injection and biopsy when lidocaine is injected periprostatically either at a basal or apical site, as the former is commonly used to anaesthetise the prostate, based on several reports showing that it can eliminate most of the pain associated with prostate biopsy, and this site has been favoured over apical injection because the nerves enter the prostate from the basal aspect. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 143 patients scheduled for biopsy were randomized to receive a periprostatic block either at the apex or base of the prostate. Immediately before biopsy 5 mL of 1% lidocaine was injected under transrectal ultrasonographic (TRUS) guidance into the periprostatic nerves bilaterally. Patients were immediately given a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-100) to assess the pain associated with both the block and the subsequent biopsy. RESULTS: The mean VAS scores for the anaesthetic block were 21.1 and 22.0 (P = 0.79) and the biopsy VAS scores were 17.6 and 28.7 (P < 0.001) for the apical and basal groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between patients who had a 12- or 20-core biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Apical periprostatic injection with anaesthetic provides better anaesthesia for TRUS biopsy than basal injection, and without increasing the pain associated with injection at the potentially more sensitive apical site.     

The Optimum Doses of and Injection Locations for Periprostatic Nerve Blockade for Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy of the Prostate: A Prospective,Randomized, Placebo Controlled Study

PurposeWe evaluated the efficiency of various amounts of local anesthesia and various numbers of injection sites to determine the most effective pain control with the least number of injections and the amount of injected medium in patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy.Materials and MethodsTransrectal ultrasound guided 8 core biopsy of the prostate was performed in 175 consecutive men. Patients were randomized into 7 groups with 25 per group. Group 1 received 5 cc saline and groups 2 to 7 received 2.5, 5 or 10 cc 1% lidocaine injected as local anesthesia at basal or basal plus apical locations. The patients were then evaluated for pain and other complications to determine whether there was a difference regarding groups.ResultsMean pain scores were significantly lower than in saline group for all anesthesia injected groups except group 2 with a 2.5 cc bilateral basal injection. The most effective pain control was achieved by 10 cc anesthetic injections. Basal plus apical injections were not superior than only basal injections for pain control. There was no significant difference in the hematuria, hematospermia, rectal bleeding or infection rate among the groups. Increasing the number of injections and amount of lidocaine had no effect on complication rates.ConclusionOur placebo controlled, prospective, randomized study indicated that 10 cc local anesthetic injections supply significantly better pain control than lower doses for periprostatic nerve blockade during prostate biopsy. Although bilateral basal plus apical 10 cc lidocaine injections resulted in the lowest mean pain score, there was no statistically significant difference from 10 cc bilateral basal injections.     

Bupivacaine provides rapid, effective periprostatic anaesthesia for transrectal prostate biopsy

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of the longer acting agent bupivacaine in providing periprostatic anaesthesia during transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy, as the periprostatic injection of lidocaine has been shown to significantly alleviate the pain of this procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-five patients were randomized to receive a periprostatic injection with either bupivacaine, a lidocaine/bupivacaine (1/1) combination, or no local anaesthesia. Immediately before biopsy 5 mL of the anaesthetic was injected under TRUS guidance into the periprostatic nerves bilaterally. After taking a 10-core biopsy the patients were given a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0-10) to assess their pain during the procedure. RESULTS: The mean VAS scores were 2.04 in the bupivacaine group and 4.46 in the control (no local anaesthetic) group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bupivicaine provides significant, immediate periprostatic anaesthesia for TRUS biopsy.     

Does periprostatic local anesthesia for prostate biopsy affect the operative difficulty of open radical prostatectomy? A prospective randomized trial

Objectives

Periprostatic local anesthesia for transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy requires additional needle punctures and injection of local anesthetics into the periprostatic area. This study sought to determine the influence of periprostatic local anesthesia on the surgical difficulty of open radical prostatectomy (RP).

Patients and methods

A total of 241 consecutive patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate needle biopsy were randomized to receive either periprostatic nerve block (Anesthesia group; n?=?120) or no anesthesia (Control group; n?=?121). After diagnosing localized prostate cancer, patients who underwent open RP without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy were evaluated as to whether perioperative nerve block affected operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), positive margin rate or complications.

Results

Twenty-one patients in the Anesthesia group and 19 patients in the Control group were investigated in the current study. In assessing the patients who underwent open RP with or without periprostatic nerve block, no significant differences in operative duration, EBL, positive margin rate or complications were seen between groups.

Conclusion

Periprostatic nerve block does not appear to affect perioperative outcomes after open RP.     

Local anesthesia reduces pain associated with transrectal prostatic biopsy. A prospective randomized study

INTRODUCTION: To test the hypothesis that periprostatic block could completely relief prostatic biopsy-associated pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients scheduled for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy were randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to no analgesia (group A), endorectal enema of 1% lidocaine gel (group B) or transrectal periprostatic block (group C). All patients underwent 10 core TRUS-guided biopsy. After the procedure, a ten visual analogue pain score (VAS) from 0 = no discomfort to 10 = severe pain was administered to the biopsied patients and a global estimation of pain associated with the procedure was obtained. The study design included interim analysis of pain score after the first 60 patients were enrolled. Kruskal-Wallis test for unpaired data was used for statistical analysis. Data are presented as mean, median (range). RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled between May 2003 and December 2003 and all patients were evaluable. Mean and median age was 68.5 and 69 (range 53-82) years, respectively. Mean and median PSA was 86.8 and 9 ng/ml (range 0.58-4.111), respectively. No major side effects were observed. Patients in group A scored at VAS a median 4, mean 5.5 +/- 2.3 (range 3-10). Patients in group B scored a median 4, mean 5.5 +/- 2.7 (range 3-10) (p = 0.237). Patients receiving periprostatic injections of carbocaine (group C) scored a median 0, mean 0.5 +/- 0.8 (range 0-2). The level of pain reported by this group of patients was significantly different from those reported by patients who performed prostatic biopsy without anesthesia or with intrarectal anesthetic jelly (p = 0.00001). In the periprostatic block group 65% of patients referred no pain after the procedure (VAS = 0) while all patients in the other groups experience some degree of pain. CONCLUSION: The use of bilateral periprostatic block is a very effective and useful technique, well tolerated by the patient, which almost completely abolishes the pain and discomfort associated with the prostatic biopsy procedure.     

Estudio comparativo entre la eficacia analgésica y seguridad de la meperidina intravenosa frente a la infiltración periprostática con lidocaína en biopsias transrectales de próstata

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy of intravenous analgesia with meperidine compared to periprostatic plexus infiltration with lidocaine, and safety of periprostatic local anesthesia.Materials and methodsA prospective randomized study with 100 patients undergoing first or second prostate biopsy. We distribute patients in two groups, group A (50 patients) which was administered 50 mg of intravenous meperidine and group B (50 patients) receiving 5 mL of lidocaine 2% in the angle between prostate and seminal vesicles. Pain was assessed by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and a questionnaire about the emotional impact. Procedure safety was obtained by telephone questionnaire about prostate biopsy complications. The statistical analysis used was chi square test, Student’s t test and Kruskal-Wallis no parametric test.ResultsMedian age was 66 years (47-80) and both groups were homogeneous with regard to: PSA, prostate volume, core’s number and educational level without significant differences. 74 patients (74%) had their first biopsy and 26 (26%) had their second one. The average number of core biopsy was 10,9±2, and VAS mean score for group A was 3,6±1,8 versus 3,2±2 Group B without significant differences (p>0,05). We found significant differences (p<0,05) between transducer introduction (3,9±1,9 group A/B group 4,3±2,2) and core biopsy (3,6±1,8 group A/B group 3,2±2,2). There were no differences between the data obtained with emotional impact test, age and educational level comparing to pain caused by prostate biopsy. Regard to the number of cores obtained there were no differences (p>0,05). Complications appeared in 12 patients (12%), 5 in the group of meperidine compared with 7 in the lidocaine without differences between them.ConclusionPeriprostatic plexus blocked with lidocaine does not offer advantages respect to meperidine, despite the fact that this is a safe method that does not increase the number of complications. Placing transrectal transducer causes more pain than biopsy cores.     

老年男性静脉麻醉下经直肠超声引导无痛前列腺穿刺疼痛控制与并发症分析

目的：探讨前列腺特异抗原增高（PSA〉4/μg/L）老年男性静脉麻醉下经直肠超声引导无痛前列腺穿刺疼痛控制与并发症发生情况.方法：选取96例PSA增高老年男性患者（69±7岁）进行静脉麻醉下直肠超声引导无痛前列腺12针系统穿刺（静脉麻醉组）,并选取同期进行前列腺周围神经阻滞麻醉下直肠超声引导前列腺12针系统穿刺的51例PSA增高老年男性患者（67±6岁）为对照组.记录穿刺后30 min视觉模拟疼痛评分（VAS）、穿刺时间、麻醉不良事件和并发症发生情况.结果：静脉麻醉组90例（94%）为无疼痛（VAS=0）,6例（6%）为轻度疼痛 对照组21例（41%）为轻度疼痛,30例（59%）为中度疼痛.静脉麻醉组平均VAS评分和穿刺时间分别为（0.1±0.3）分和（5.1±1.3）min,显著低于对照组（3.85±1.2）分和（11.35±3.9）min.静脉麻醉组无一例发生麻醉不良事件.静脉麻醉组术后肉眼血尿、大便带血、发热和尿潴留的发生率分别为55%、15%、5%和3%,与对照组的差异无统计学意义（57%、18%、6%和4%）.结论：对于PSA增高老年男性患者,静脉麻醉直肠超声引导无痛前列腺穿刺具有无痛安全准确的优点.     

Effectiveness of local anaesthesia techniques in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A prospective randomized study

AIM: This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of intrarectal lidocaine gel versus periprostatic lidocaine injection during transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. METHODS: Ninety men undergoing transrectal prostate biopsy from July through December 2004 were randomized into three groups of 30 patients each. Before the biopsy, patients in Group 1 received 20 mL of 2% lidocaine gel intrarectally; patients in Group 2 received 5 mL (2.5 mL per side) of 2% lidocaine solution injected near the junction of the seminal vesicle with the base of the prostate (along the neurovascular bundles), and patients in Group 3 (control group) received 5 mL (2.5 mL per side) of normal saline injected along the neurovascular bundles. Pain level after the biopsy was assessed using a 10-point linear visual analog scale (VAS). Results were statistically compared by the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. RESULTS: Patients in Group 2 had significantly lower VAS scores than those in Group 3 (3.6 +/- 2.1 vs 5.8 +/- 1.9, P < 0.0001), but those in Group 1 did not (5.5 +/- 2.7 vs 5.8 +/- 1.9, P = 0.67). Gross hematuria, rectal bleeding, and hemospermia occurred in 36 (40.0%), 6 (7%) and 5 (6%) patients. One patient had temporary vasovagal syncope. No patient reported febrile urinary tract infection or urinary retention. CONCLUSIONS: Periprostatic injection of local anaesthetic is a safe technique that significantly reduces pain during prostate biopsy, whereas intrarectal lidocaine injection did not reduce pain. This safe, simple technique should be applied in men undergoing TRUS-guided prostate biopsy to limit patient discomfort.     

Local anesthesia during 10 core biopsy of the prostate: comparison of 2 methods

PURPOSE: We investigated the effectiveness of a new method, intraprostatic administration of local anesthesia vs traditional periprostatic injection for decreasing the discomfort caused by transrectal ultrasound guided, 10 core biopsy of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 71 patients who received intraprostatic anesthesia between October 2002 and March 2003, and 99 who received periprostatic anesthesia between October 2001 and September 2002 before prostate biopsy. After biopsy patients were given a questionnaire, which consisted of 5 questions about pain and 3 about morbidity, and were asked to complete it and mail it to our department. RESULTS: The mean score +/- SD for the degree of pain during biopsy in the periprostatic groups was 2.6 +/- 1.1 and that in the intraprostatic group was 1.9 +/- 1.1, which was significantly different (p <0.001). Other items, including the degree of pain after biopsy, duration and location of pain, and medicine intake for pain, were not significantly different between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in morbidity, including hematuria, hemospermia and rectal bleeding, between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intraprostatic administration of local anesthesia significantly decreases the pain associated with prostate biopsy compared with periprostatic nerve block. It is a simple, safe and rapid technique that should be considered in all patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy.     

Saturation prostate biopsy with periprostatic block can be performed in office

PURPOSE: Recent reports of saturation prostate biopsy performed in the operating room with the patient under anesthesia have shown increased cancer detection rates over repeat office based prostate biopsy. We report equivalent success and tolerability of saturation biopsy in the office using local anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed 24 core saturation prostate biopsies in 15 patients using periprostatic local anesthesia. Before biopsy 20 cc 2% lidocaine (10 cc per side) were injected under ultrasound guidance into the periprostatic nerve entry into the prostate bilaterally. After measurements were made a random 24 core prostate biopsy was performed using a spring loaded biopsy gun. Pain was determined using a visual analog scale to assess tolerability. RESULTS: Complete 24 core biopsies were successful and well tolerated in all 15 patients. Cancer detected in 5 patients (33%) was clinical stage T1C. Mean prostate specific antigen before biopsy was 11.2 ng./dl. (range 5 to 24.1). The indication for biopsy was elevated prostate specific antigen after a previous normal biopsy in 12 patients. In 2 patients prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia was noted on a previous biopsy and in 1 previous atypia was identified on biopsy. The mean visual analog scale pain score was 0.7 (range 0 to 3). Prolonged minor hematuria greater than 5 days in duration occurred in 3 cases requiring no intervention. No other complications occurred. Nerve sparing was not more difficult in the single patient who underwent radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Saturation prostate biopsy is well tolerated in the office setting with the patient under local anesthesia. The additional risk, time and cost of performing these procedures in the operating room using anesthesia may be safely avoided.     

Local anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: EMLA cream as a new alternative technique

OBJECTIVES: The aims of the present study were to evaluate the efficacy of eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) cream in transrectal-guided prostate biopsy and to compare its effect with that of other injectable anesthetic procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty male patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels > 4 ng/ml or who had prostate nodules on digital rectal examination were randomly divided into four groups. In Group 1 (controls), prostate biopsy was performed after application of a placebo cream. In Group 2, local surface anesthesia with EMLA cream was performed 15 min before biopsy. Periprosthetic nerve blockade was performed with 1% prilocaine and 1% lidocaine in Groups 3 and 4, respectively. Pain was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS) after each core biopsy. In addition, blood pressure, heart rate and oxygen saturations were recorded after each biopsy and then at 5-min intervals for 15 min. RESULTS: Average VAS scores in Groups 1-4 were 5.5, 2.9, 2.4 and 2.2, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in VAS scores between the treatment groups and the placebo group (p = 0.000). There were no statistically significant differences in VAS scores between the three treatment groups (p2-3 = 0.126, p2-4 = 0.303, p3-4 = 0.537). We detected no statistically significant differences between the groups based on the hemodynamic data (pMAP = 0.899). Moreover, these measurements did not show statistically significant changes with time in any of the groups (p > 0. 05). CONCLUSION: Intrarectal application of EMLA cream provides equal anesthesia to periprostatic nerve blockade with prilocaine and lidocaine.