Effective Concentration of Lidocaine Plus Fentanyl for Caudal Block in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy

Objective. This study determined the effective concentration (EC) of lidocaine plus 75 μg fentanyl for caudal block in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy. Methods. Consecutive male patients scheduled for TRUS guided prostate biopsy were enrolled. The mixed solution for caudal block contained lidocaine and 75 μg fentanyl, in total 20 mL. The concentration of lidocaine was determined using the up-and-down method, starting at 0.8% (a step size of 0.1%). A successful caudal block was defined by no pain perception during biopsy. The EC50 of lidocaine for successful caudal block was calculated and side effects were evaluated. Results. A total of 23 patients were recruited. The EC50 of lidocaine for successful caudal block was 0.53%. Conclusions. Lidocaine of 0.53% combined with 75 μg fentanyl resulted in excellent caudal block in 50% of male patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy.

Download Full-text

Lidocaine spray administration in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: Five years of experience

Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia ◽

10.4081/aiua.2014.4.340 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 86 (4) ◽

pp. 340 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Lucio Dell’Atti

Keyword(s):

Pain Score ◽

Prostate Biopsy ◽

Low Cost ◽

Prostate Gland ◽

Transrectal Ultrasound ◽

Pain Scale ◽

Patient Comfort ◽

Ultrasound Guided ◽

Male Patients ◽

Lidocaine Spray

Objectives: We report in this singlecenter study our results of a five-year experience in the administration of lidocaine spray (LS) during ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TPB). Material and Methods: Between August 2008 and July 2013 a total of 1022 consecutive male patients scheduled for TPB with elevate PSA (≥ 4 ng/ml) and (or) abnormal digital rectal and (or) suspect TRUS were considered eligible for the study. Each patient was treated under local anaesthesia with LS (10 gr/100 ml), applied two minutes before the procedure. TPB was performed with the patient in the left lateral decubitus using multi-frequency convex probe “end-fire”. Two experienced urologists performed a 14-core biopsy, as first intention. After the procedure each patient was given a verbal numeric pain scale (VNS). The evaluation was differentiated in two scales VNS: VNS 1 for the insertion of the probe and the manoeuvres associated, while VNS 2 only for the pain during needle’s insertion. Results: Pain scores were not statistically significant different with regard to the values of PSA and prostate gland volume. Pain score levels during probe insertion and biopsy were significantly different: the mean pain score according to VNS was 3.3 (2-8) in the first questionnaire (VNS1) (p < 0.001) and 2.1 (1-7) in the second one (VNS2) (p < 0.125). The 8.2% of cases referred severe or unbearable pain (score ≥ 7), 74% of patients referred no pain at all. Only 21 patients would not ever repeat the biopsy or would request a different type of anaesthesia, while 82% of them would repeat it in the same way. In only eight patients we have not been able to insert TRUS probe. Conclusions: Our pain score data suggest that LS provides efficient patient comfort during TPB reducing pain both during insertion of the probe and the needle. This non-infiltrative anaesthesia is safe, easy to administer, psychologically well accepted by patients and of low cost.

Download Full-text