Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
EClinicalMedicine ; 58: 101919, 2023 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37007736

RESUMO

Background: We aimed to investigate perineal nerve block versus periprostatic block in pain control for men undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy. Methods: In this prospective, randomised, blinded and parallel-group trial, men in six Chinese hospitals with suspected prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) at the point of local anaesthesia to receive a perineal nerve block or periprostatic block and followed by a transperineal prostate biopsy. Centres used their usual biopsy procedure. Operators who performed anaesthesia were trained in both techniques before the trial and were masked to the randomised allocation until the time of anaesthesia and were not involved in the subsequent biopsy procedure and any assessment or analysis. Other investigators and the patients were masked until trial completion. The primary outcome was the level of the worst pain experienced during the prostate biopsy procedure. Secondary outcomes included pain (post-biopsy at 1, 6 and 24 h), changes in blood pressure, heart rate and breathing rate during the biopsy procedure, external manifestations of pain during biopsy, anaesthesia satisfaction, the detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501055. Findings: Between August 13, 2020, and July 20, 2022, 192 men were randomly assigned to perineal nerve block or periprostatic block, 96 per study group. Perineal nerve block was superior for the relief of pain during the biopsy procedure (mean 2.80 for perineal nerve block and 3.98 for periprostatic block; adjusted difference in means -1.17, P < 0.001). Although the perineal nerve block had a lower mean pain score at 1 h post-biopsy compared with the periprostatic block (0.23 vs 0.43, P = 0.042), they were equivalent at 6 h (0.16 vs 0.25, P = 0.389) and 24 h (0.10 vs 0.26, P = 0.184) respectively. For the change in vital signs during biopsy procedure, perineal nerve block was significantly superior to periprostatic block in terms of maximum value of systolic blood pressure, maximum value of mean arterial pressure and maximum value of heart rate. There are no statistical differences in average value of systolic blood pressure, average value of mean, average value of heart rate, diastolic blood pressure and breathing rate. Perineal nerve block was also superior to periprostatic block in external manifestations of pain (1.88 vs 3.00, P < 0.001) and anaesthesia satisfaction (8.93 vs 11.90, P < 0.001). Equivalence was shown for the detection rate of PCa (31.25% for perineal nerve block and 29.17% for periprostatic block, P = 0.753) or csPCa (23.96% for perineal nerve block and 20.83% for periprostatic block, P = 0.604). 33 (34.8%) of 96 patients in the perineal nerve block group and 40 (41.67%) of 96 patients in the periprostatic block group had at least one complication. Interpretation: Perineal nerve block was superior to periprostatic block in pain control for men undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy. Funding: Grant 2019YFC0119100 from the National Key Research and Development Program of China.

2.
Cent European J Urol ; 72(2): 121-133, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31482018

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness and harms of periprostatic block compared with other interventions in patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer who underwent transrectal biopsy to diminish pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included only clinical trials which involved male adults older than 18 years-old suspected of having prostate cancer. The intervention performed was a periprostatic block and the comparators were topical anesthetics, sedatives, placebo/no intervention or combined therapies. The primary outcome was perianal or perineal pain and serious adverse effects (SAE). Literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL and non-published literature from inception to March 2019. We performed a network meta-analysis in R. RESULTS: We included 43 studies in the meta-analysis. Thirteen studies compared periprostatic block vs. placebo/no intervention (the most frequent). Most of the studies had an unclear risk of bias for selection, performance and detection bias and low risk for attrition, reporting and other bias. Periprostatic block (lidocaine) + intrarectal gel (lidocaine + prilocaine) vs. periprostatic block (lidocaine) showed an RR -0.9 (95%CI - 1.9 to 0.074); intrarectal gel (lidocaine) vs. periprostatic block (lidocaine) had a RR 0.77 (95%CI 0.14 to 1.4); placebo/no intervention vs. periprostatic block (lidocaine) + intrarectal gel (lidocaine+prilocaine) RR 3 (95%CI 1.9 to 4); intrarectal gel (lidocaine) versus periprostatic block (lidocaine) + intrarectal gel (lidocaine + prilocaine) RR 1.7 (95%CI 0.64 to 2.7). CONCLUSIONS: The blockage of the periprostatic plexus in the performance of a transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy, alone or in combination with intrarectal analgesia or sedation, is an effective method to reduce pain.

3.
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad ; 29(4): 566-569, 2017.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29330978

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) technique for getting prostatic tissue for histopathology is now the standard procedure for malignant lesions of the prostate and imperative diagnostic investigation of patients with clinical specks of prostatic neoplasia. During TRUS guided biopsy, pain control has been important issue therefore, highly potent analgesia before this procedure should be considered on high priority according to current census. Therefore, we compared intramuscular diclofenac injection with sensory blockade of injection lidocaine to abolish pain undergoing prostatic biopsy with TRUS technique. METHODS: Total 200 patients were selected for this study having raised PSA values and suspicious nodule on Digital Rectal Examination. These patients were segregated into two groups by randomization. Group "A" received intramuscular diclofenac and group "B" were infiltrated with lidocaine injection for sensory blockade. RESULTS: Patients in group A was having mean age of 64.5±5.8 years while for group B patients was 65.6±4.9 years (p=0.16). Both groups have statistically insignificant difference in their mean PSA values (p=0.24) and mean prostatic volume (p=0.22). The mean pain scores on visual analogue scale in groups A was 3.5±0.8 and in group B it was 2.4±0.8 (p<0.001). 60% group A patients reported with mild or no pain compared to 90% in group B. (p<0.001).. CONCLUSIONS: Local blockade with lidocaine injection has better pain control as compared to patients experienced pain with intramuscular diclofenac used for prostatic biopsy through TRUS technique..


Assuntos
Diclofenaco/administração & dosagem , Endossonografia/métodos , Biópsia Guiada por Imagem/métodos , Lidocaína/administração & dosagem , Medição da Dor/métodos , Dor/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Idoso , Anestésicos Locais/administração & dosagem , Inibidores de Ciclo-Oxigenase/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Injeções , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Dor/diagnóstico , Reto
4.
Urol Ann ; 7(3): 339-44, 2015.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26229322

RESUMO

AIM: In this paper, we aimed to compare the efficacy of three different anesthesia techniques applied in 90 cases of which transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) -guided prostate biopsies were taken. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 2012 and July 2012, TRUS-guided 16 core biopsies were taken from 90 patients who comply the study criteria. Patients were randomly divided into three groups each of which consists of 30 individuals. Group 1: Was applied periprostatic block anesthesia; Group 2: Was administered intrarectal lidocaine gel; Group 3: Was applied pudendal block. Visual analog scale (VAS) of patients in groups was evaluated. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the mean ages, prostate-specific antigen values of three groups. Although pain ratings of Groups 2 and 3 were high, no significant difference was present between each other (P > 0.05). In Groups 1 and 2, the difference between VASs was significant. In the group where periprostatic block was applied, pain ratings were significantly low compared with the other two groups (P = 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Enabling pain and discomfort control in patients is very important during TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. In our study, we observed that the periprostatic block enables more comfortable compared with patient groups with intrarectal lidocaine gel and pudendal block and better reduction in pain scores.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA