scholarly journals Quinolone Prophylaxis in Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy: An Eight-Year Single Center Experience

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bing-Juin Chiang ◽  
Yeong Shiau Pu ◽  
Shiu-Dong Chung ◽  
Shih-Ping Liu ◽  
Hong-Jeng Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Pipemidic Acid ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
E Coli ◽  
Single Center Experience ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of prophylaxis with pipemidic acid and levofloxacin in transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUSP-Bx). From January 2002 to December 2004, patients receiving oral pipemidic acid 500 mg twice daily for three days with or without a preoperative intravenous cefazolin 1 gm injection comprised group A. Between January 2005 and December 2009, patients receiving oral levofloxacin 500 mg one hour before biopsy comprised group B. We calculated the annual febrile urinary tract infection (fUTI) rates. Patients’ characteristics, including age, prophylactic antibiotics, biopsy core numbers, pathologic results, PSA, and the spectrums and susceptibility of pathogens, were also evaluated. A total of 1313 (35.5%) patients belonged to group A, while 2381 (64.5%) patients belonged to group B. Seventy-three patients experienced postoperative infectious complications. There was a significant difference in the fUTI rate between groups A and B (3.7% versus 1.0%,P<0.001). The yearly fUTI rates varied from 0.6 to 3.9% between 2002 and 2009. Of the 73 patients with fUTI, those receiving levofloxacin prophylaxis were more likely to harbor fluoroquinolone-resistant pathogens (P<0.001).E. coliwas the most common pathogen in both groups. Levofloxacin remains effective and appears superior to pipemidic acid based prophylaxis.

scholarly journals Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy: Three different types of local anesthesia

2016 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppina Anastasi ◽  
Enrica Subba ◽  
Rosa Pappalardo ◽  
Luciano Macchione ◽  
Gioacchino Ricotta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Patient Comfort ◽  
Traumatic Experience ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy is regarded as the gold standard for prostate cancer diagnosis. The majority of patients perceive TRUS-guided prostate biopsy as a physically and psychologically traumatic experience. We aimed to compare in this paper the efficacy of three different anesthesia techniques to control the pain during the procedure. Materials and methods: 150 patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy were randomly divided into three groups. Group A included 50 patients who received one hour before the procedure a mixture of 2.5% lidocaine and 2.5% prilocaine, Group B: 50 patients who received intrarectal local anesthetic administration (lidocaine 5 ml 10%) and lidocaine local spray 15 % and Group C included 50 patients who received periprostatic block anesthesia (lidocaine 10 ml 10%). Visual analogue scale (VAS) of patients in different groups was evaluated at the end of the biopsy and 30 minutes after the procedure. Results: The VAS of patients in Group A was 1.32 ± 0.65 (VAS I) and 2.47 ± 0.80 (VAS II). In group B the VAS of patients was 1.09 ± 0.47 (VAS I) and 1.65 ± 0.61 (VAS II). In group C the VAS of patients was 2.63 ± 0.78 (VAS I) and 1.70 ± 0.85 (VAS II). There was no statistically significant difference in term of VAS I between group A and B. A statistically significant difference was determined in terms of VAS II between group A and B. There was no statistically significant difference in term of VAS between group B and C. Conclusions: The most effective of the three methods for pain control we used was intrarectal local anesthetic administration and lidocaine local spray 15% that enables an ideal patient comfort.

scholarly journals PERIPROSTATIC NERVE BLOCK AND INTRAPROSTATIC INFILTRATION ON TRUS-P GUIDED BIOPSY

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendi Rachman ◽  
Ferry Safriadi
Keyword(s):  
Nerve Block ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Anorectal Abscess ◽  
Biopsy Material ◽  
Bladder Pain ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Periprostatic Nerve Block

Objective: This study is aimed to determine the effectiveness and complications of periprostatic block and intraprostatic infiltration anesthesia for transrectal prostate biopsy. Material & Method: Two consecutive group of patients, periprostatic block (group A) and intraprostatic infiltration (group B), underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy were entered into the study. Exclusion criteria were severe systemic infection, local infection (prostatitis, proctitis, anorectal abscess, and fissure), hemorrhoid (external and/or internal), and chronic pelvic pain (bladder pain syndrome (BPS) or other pelvic disease. Each group enrolled 58 patients. The patients were requested to choose indicate degree of pain on visual analog score (VAS) 3 times, during probe insertion (VAS1), during anesthesia (VAS2), and during the biopsy (VAS3). Complications from the procedures were recorded. The data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney and independent t-test. Results: There were no significant difference in average age of groups, 65,69 ± 7,019 years for group A and 65,34 ± 7,633 years for group B (p = 0,647). The VAS3 score of group B 5,17 ± 0,653 was significantly lower than group A 5,9 ± 0,612 (p < 0,001). The change in VAS score (VAS3-VAS2) in group B 0,55 ± 0,535 also significantly lower than group A 1,00 ± 0,530 (p = 0,004). The average days with pain were not significant on both group, group A 1,16 ± 0,362 day and group B 1,12 ± 0,329 day (p = 0,594). The duration of bleeding was significantly higher on group B 1,32 ± 0,562 day than group A 1,10 ± 0,307 day (p = 0,026). Conclusion: Intraprostatic infiltration resulted in less pain during prostate biopsy, but also reported more bleeding after the procedure than the periprostatic block.Keywords: Intraprostatic infiltration, periprostatic nerve block, transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy.

scholarly journals ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS IN LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECISTECTOMY: IS IT WORTH DOING?

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 170-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Márcio Alexandre Terra PASSOS ◽  
Pedro Eder PORTARI-FILHO
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ◽  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Group A ◽  
Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ◽  
Group B

ABSTRACT Background: Elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy has very low risk for infectious complications, ranging the infection rate from 0.4% to 1.1%. Many surgeons still use routine antibiotic prophylaxis Aim: Evaluate the real impact of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomies in low risk patients. Method: Prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Were evaluated 100 patients that underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy divided in two groups: group A (n=50), patients that received prophylaxis using intravenous Cephazolin (2 g) during anesthetic induction and group B (n=50), patients that didn't receive any antibiotic prophylaxis. The outcome evaluated were infeccious complications at surgical site. The patients were reviewed seven and 30 days after surgery. Results: There was incidence of 2% in infection complications in group A and 2% in group B. There was no statistical significant difference of infectious complications (p=0,05) between the groups. The groups were homogeneous and comparable. Conclusion: The use of the antibiotic prophylaxis in laparoscopic cholecystectomy in low risk patients doesn't provide any significant benefit in the decrease of surgical wound infection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document