Cargando…

An evaluation of factors affecting pain during transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy: a real-life scenario in a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Periprostatic infiltration anesthesia (PPIA) and intrarectal topical anesthesia (IRTA) are recommended methods to control pain in transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx). This study evaluates the factors affecting pain during TRUS-Bx, considering the pathologies involved i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cebeci, Oğuz Özden, Ozkan, Alp
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8428265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34567848
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12144
_version_ 1783750343900790784
author Cebeci, Oğuz Özden
Ozkan, Alp
author_facet Cebeci, Oğuz Özden
Ozkan, Alp
author_sort Cebeci, Oğuz Özden
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Periprostatic infiltration anesthesia (PPIA) and intrarectal topical anesthesia (IRTA) are recommended methods to control pain in transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx). This study evaluates the factors affecting pain during TRUS-Bx, considering the pathologies involved in anorectal pain etiology and comparing the effectiveness of local anesthesia techniques in providing patient comfort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 477 consecutive patients with TRUS-Bx for elevated Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), abnormal rectal examination findings, or both. Patients were grouped as local anesthesia methods for pain control during TRUS-Bx. Both groups were compared in terms of age, body mass index, clinical T stage, PSA, prostate volume, number of biopsy cores, type of anesthesia, previous biopsy history, and presence of prostate cancer. We used a visual analog pain scale (VAS) to evaluate the patient’s pain status; pre-procedure (VAS-0), during probe insertion (VAS-I), administration of anesthetic (VAS-A), and simultaneous with the biopsy procedure itself (VAS-Bx). For PPIA and IRTA, 4 ml lidocaine 20 mg/ml injection and 5 g 5% prilocaine-5% lidocaine cream was used, respectively. RESULTS: The PPIA was used 74.2% (n = 354) and IRTA was used for 25.8% (n = 123) patients. VAS-0, VAS-I, and VAS-A scores are similar between groups. VAS-Bx was significantly higher in the IRTA than in the PPIA (3.37 ± 0.18 vs. 2.36 ± 0.12 p > 0.001). Clinical T stage (OR: 0.59), number of biopsy cores (OR: 1.80), and type of anesthesia application (OR: 2.65) were independent variables on TRUS-Bx for pain. CONCLUSION: Three factors play roles as independent variables associated with the pain in TRUS-Bx; abnormal rectal examination findings, collection of more than twelve core samples during the biopsy, and the type of anesthesia used. Compared with PPIA, IRTA does not improve pain related to probe insertion, and using IRTA results in higher pain scores for biopsy-related pain. Thus, we recommend a PPIA to lower biopsy-related pain.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8428265
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84282652021-09-24 An evaluation of factors affecting pain during transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy: a real-life scenario in a retrospective cohort study Cebeci, Oğuz Özden Ozkan, Alp PeerJ Anesthesiology and Pain Management BACKGROUND: Periprostatic infiltration anesthesia (PPIA) and intrarectal topical anesthesia (IRTA) are recommended methods to control pain in transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx). This study evaluates the factors affecting pain during TRUS-Bx, considering the pathologies involved in anorectal pain etiology and comparing the effectiveness of local anesthesia techniques in providing patient comfort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 477 consecutive patients with TRUS-Bx for elevated Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), abnormal rectal examination findings, or both. Patients were grouped as local anesthesia methods for pain control during TRUS-Bx. Both groups were compared in terms of age, body mass index, clinical T stage, PSA, prostate volume, number of biopsy cores, type of anesthesia, previous biopsy history, and presence of prostate cancer. We used a visual analog pain scale (VAS) to evaluate the patient’s pain status; pre-procedure (VAS-0), during probe insertion (VAS-I), administration of anesthetic (VAS-A), and simultaneous with the biopsy procedure itself (VAS-Bx). For PPIA and IRTA, 4 ml lidocaine 20 mg/ml injection and 5 g 5% prilocaine-5% lidocaine cream was used, respectively. RESULTS: The PPIA was used 74.2% (n = 354) and IRTA was used for 25.8% (n = 123) patients. VAS-0, VAS-I, and VAS-A scores are similar between groups. VAS-Bx was significantly higher in the IRTA than in the PPIA (3.37 ± 0.18 vs. 2.36 ± 0.12 p > 0.001). Clinical T stage (OR: 0.59), number of biopsy cores (OR: 1.80), and type of anesthesia application (OR: 2.65) were independent variables on TRUS-Bx for pain. CONCLUSION: Three factors play roles as independent variables associated with the pain in TRUS-Bx; abnormal rectal examination findings, collection of more than twelve core samples during the biopsy, and the type of anesthesia used. Compared with PPIA, IRTA does not improve pain related to probe insertion, and using IRTA results in higher pain scores for biopsy-related pain. Thus, we recommend a PPIA to lower biopsy-related pain. PeerJ Inc. 2021-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8428265/ /pubmed/34567848 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12144 Text en ©2021 Cebeci and Ozkan https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Anesthesiology and Pain Management
Cebeci, Oğuz Özden
Ozkan, Alp
An evaluation of factors affecting pain during transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy: a real-life scenario in a retrospective cohort study
title An evaluation of factors affecting pain during transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy: a real-life scenario in a retrospective cohort study
title_full An evaluation of factors affecting pain during transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy: a real-life scenario in a retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr An evaluation of factors affecting pain during transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy: a real-life scenario in a retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed An evaluation of factors affecting pain during transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy: a real-life scenario in a retrospective cohort study
title_short An evaluation of factors affecting pain during transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy: a real-life scenario in a retrospective cohort study
title_sort evaluation of factors affecting pain during transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy: a real-life scenario in a retrospective cohort study
topic Anesthesiology and Pain Management
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8428265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34567848
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12144
work_keys_str_mv AT cebecioguzozden anevaluationoffactorsaffectingpainduringtransrectalultrasonographicprostatebiopsyareallifescenarioinaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT ozkanalp anevaluationoffactorsaffectingpainduringtransrectalultrasonographicprostatebiopsyareallifescenarioinaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT cebecioguzozden evaluationoffactorsaffectingpainduringtransrectalultrasonographicprostatebiopsyareallifescenarioinaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT ozkanalp evaluationoffactorsaffectingpainduringtransrectalultrasonographicprostatebiopsyareallifescenarioinaretrospectivecohortstudy