Anaesthesia in PROstate Biopsy Pain Obstruction Study: A Study Protocol for a Multicentre Randomised Controlled Study Evaluating the Efficacy of Perineal Nerve Block in Controlling Pain in Patients Undergoing Transperineal Prostate Biopsy

Introduction: Transperineal prostate biopsy is as effective as the transrectal biopsy in detecting prostate cancer and has a lower risk of infection. However, concerning the procedural pain of the transperineal route, a higher level of anaesthesia is needed, which prevents this approach from being widely used. Although several methods of local anaesthesia to relieve pain during transperineal biopsy have been described, few well-designed trials have been conducted to assess the efficacy of local anaesthesia.Methods: This is a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled study in men suspected of having prostate cancer and planning to undergo transperineal prostate biopsy. The aim of this trial is to determine whether the perineal nerve block and periprostatic block relieve pain to different extents in men undergoing transperineal biopsy. The main inclusion criteria are men aged between 18 and 80 years old, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 4–20 ng/ml, or/and suspicious rectal examination findings. A sample size of 190 participants, accounting for a 10% loss, is required. All participants will be randomly allocated at a ratio of 1:1 to the perineal nerve block (n = 95) and periprostatic block groups (n = 95). The primary outcome will be the level of the worst pain experienced during the transperineal prostate biopsy procedure, which will be measured by a numerical rating scale (NRS). The key secondary outcomes will include the pain severity score at 1, 6, and 24 h after prostate biopsy.Results: The primary outcome is the level of the worst pain experienced during the prostate biopsy procedure. The main secondary outcomes are as follows: (1) Post-biopsy pain severity score at 1, 6, and 24 h after the prostate biopsy; (2) Changes in blood pressure, heart rate and breathing rate during the biopsy procedure; (3) External manifestations of pain during biopsy; (4) Anaesthesia satisfaction; (5) The detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer and any prostate cancer.Conclusion: Anaesthesia in PROstate biopsy Pain Obstruction Study (APROPOS) is randomised controlled trial aiming to determine the efficacy of the perineal nerve block in controlling pain in patients undergoing prostate biopsy via the transperineal approach.Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04501055.

Options for antibacterial prophylaxis of infectious complications of prostate biopsy

Introduction. Amount of prostate biopsy procedures rises every year and up to 95% of cases of prostate biopsy is performed via transrectal approach. The incidence of infectious complications of transrectal prostate biopsy reaches up to 17%, while incidence of such complications of transperineal biopsy is about 1%. The majority of international clinical guidelines recommends for obligatory antibiotic prophylaxis prior to prostate biopsy of any approach, but the choice of antibiotic is still debatable. The aim of this review is to sum up the approaches of international urological guidelines to the antibiotic prophylaxis prior to prostate biopsy. Materials and methods. We analyzed the search results in the scientific databases PubMed, Google Scolar, elibrary.ru for the queries «prostate biopsy», «antibacterial prophylaxis» and «guidelines». Results. According to the recommendations of most professional communities, antibacterial prophylaxis of infectious complications of prostate biopsy can be carried out in various ways - once or for a long time, one- or two-component, empirically or on the basis of urine culture on microflora. Conclusion. Despite the differences in the levels of sensitivity and resistance of coliform flora around the world, the clinical guidelines in most countries are uniform in terms of the choice of drugs to reduce the risk of developing infectious complications after prostate biopsy. Approaches to antibacterial prophylaxis after prostate biopsy differ only depending on the type of biopsy access.

Comparing tolerability of local anaesthetic transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsies

Objectives: Local anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsies have been demonstrated as tolerable. However, to date, the tolerability has not been directly compared to the standard of care for transrectal biopsy. We set out to prospectively compare the tolerability of local anaesthetic transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsies. Patients and methods: All patients between 3 April 2019 to 6 December 2019 undergoing local anaesthetic transperineal / transrectal ultrasound biopsy were prospectively asked to complete a questionnaire using visual analogue scales assessing the tolerability of their biopsy. Results: 108 patients were included. Baseline characteristics (mean): age 66.4 years, prostate-specific antigen 13.7 ng/dl, prostate volume 48 ml. Of the patients 51% had ⩾ Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer. 56 patients had transperineal and 52 patients had transrectal biopsy. Median visual analogue scale scores (0–9: transperineal vs transrectal) for probe insertion, probe presence, local anaesthetic injection and taking biopsy were 3 vs 4 ( p=0.66), 3 vs 3 ( p=0.91), 3 vs 2 ( p=0.15) and 3 vs 3 ( p=0.18), respectively. Median visual analogue scale scores (0–3) for overall pain, embarrassment and how they would describe it to a friend were 1 vs 1 ( p=0.17), 0 vs 0 ( p=0.34) and 1 vs 1 ( p=0.2), respectively (transperineal vs transrectal ultrasound). 42 of the 56 patients in the transperineal group had prior transrectal biopsy. 24/42 patients described local anaesthetic transperineal biopsy as the same or better than transrectal; 15/42 described it as a little worse. Conclusion: Tolerability of local anaesthetic transperineal biopsy is comparable to transrectal biopsy. As such, we advocate the routine use of transperineal biopsy and to phase out the transrectal approach where possible. Level of evidence: 2b

An abdominal-sacral approach with preoperative embolisation for vulvar solitary fibrous tumour: a case report

Background Solitary fibrous tumours (SFTs) in the female genital tract are uncommon. Resection of these tumours is controversial because it can cause life-threatening haemorrhage. We report a case of vulvar SFT that was excised in a combined abdominal-sacral approach after preoperative embolisation. Case presentation At another hospital, an inoperable intrapelvic tumour was diagnosed in a 34-year-old woman. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging showed that the uterus, urinary bladder and rectum were compressed laterally by a pelvic tumour with a maximum diameter of 11 cm. This mass was hypervascular and had a well-defined border. Transperineal biopsy was performed, and immunostaining revealed that the mass was an SFT. The tumour was supplied by feeding vessels from the right iliac arteries. First, we embolised the feeding vessels. Second, we performed surgical resection in a combined abdominal-sacral approach; no blood transfusion was necessary, and no perioperative complications occurred. The final pathological diagnosis was SFT that was positive for CD34 and signal transducer and activator of transcription 6 according to immunohistochemical staining. Conclusion During a year of follow-up, the disease did not recur. Treatment of pelvic SFT should aim at complete resection through various approaches after careful measures are taken to prevent haemorrhage.