Initial outcomes of local anaesthetic freehand transperineal prostate biopsies in the outpatient setting.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the histopathological outcomes, morbidity and tolerability of freehand transperineal (TP) prostate biopsies using the PrecisionPoint™ access system (Perineologic, Cumberland, MD, USA) under local anaesthetic (LA) in the day surgery and outpatient environments, as systematic and targeted biopsies can be taken with the potential for reduced morbidity, particularly sepsis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 176 patients underwent freehand TP prostate biopsies from May 2016 to November 2017. The procedure was carried out either under LA alone or with the addition of sedation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were reported using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), version 2. Tolerability was assessed using a visual analogue scale pain score for each procedural stage. Histopathological outcomes and complications were recorded. RESULTS: The mean (range) age was 65 (36-83) years, median (range) prostate-specific antigen level was 7.9 (0.7-1374) ng/mL, and the mean (range) prostate volume 45 (15-157) mL. Biopsies were taken under LA alone (160 patients, 90%) or under LA with sedation (16, 9%). The main indication for biopsy was primary diagnosis (88.6%). In all, 91 (52%) patients underwent systematic TP biopsies (mean 24.2 cores). Cognitive MRI-targeted biopsies alone were performed in 45 patients (26%; mean 6.8 cores), and 40 (23%) had both systematic and target biopsies (mean 27.9 cores). Of the 75 patients who had primary systematic biopsies alone, 46 (61%) were positive, and 28/46 (60.9%) were diagnosed with clinically significant disease (Gleason ≥3+4). VAS pain scores were greatest during LA administration. There were five complications (2.8%, Clavien-Dindo Grade I/II). No patients developed urosepsis. CONCLUSIONS: Freehand TP biopsies using the PrecisionPoint access system is a safe, tolerable and effective method for systematic and targeted biopsies under LA in the outpatient setting. It has replaced transrectal biopsies in our centre and has potential to transform practice.

Comparing Surgeon Adherence with World Health Organization Antiseptic Guidelines for Surgical Site Preparation in the United Kingdom and India.

Background: Skin preparation with an antiseptic solution aims to reduce surgical site infection rates. Surgical site infections (SSIs) create a high burden on healthcare systems with impacts on morbidity, mortality, and cost. In 2016, The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an extensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing evidence. From this, they recommended the use of "alcohol based antiseptic solutions based on CHG for surgical site skin preparation in patients undergoing surgical procedures." This study aimed to assess surgeon compliance with this guidance in the United Kingdom and India. Methods: A multiple-choice questionnaire was developed to assess surgeon preferences for antiseptic use in their surgical site preparation. The end point of data collection was defined after 50 responses in each region. Results: The majority of respondents in each center was general surgeons (n = 24, 48% United Kingdom; n = 21, 45% India), and registrars (n = 22, 44% United Kingdom; n = 23, 49% India). No surgeon preferred the use of any aqueous preparation. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) was the preparation used most commonly in both centers (n = 30, 64% India; n = 24, 48% United Kingdom). In India, this represented a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0008), however, this was not observed in the United Kingdom (p = 0.22). There were no statistically significant differences between surgeon's reasons between the United Kingdom and India, other than "easier to see" (p = 0.016). Conclusions: This data show a reduced compliance of U.K. surgeons with WHO guidance for antiseptic use compared with Indian surgeons. Although the WHO has attempted to summarize the existing data to minimize the previous uncertainty surrounding antiseptic choices, the use of CHG continues to not be adopted widely. To draw robust conclusions to provide the foundations of further guidelines, future research should focus on prospective randomized controlled trials with large numbers across multiple surgical specialties.