RESUMO
PURPOSE: Prostate biopsy side effects have a role in the controversy over screening for prostate cancer. We measured the precise incidence of infection after prostate biopsy and determined risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter study in France from April to June 2013. All prostate biopsies done during this period were included in study. A web based questionnaire was used to identify patient characteristics, biopsy methods and postoperative infectious episodes. External audit helped ensure data completeness. The primary outcome was the post-biopsy infection rate. We determined risk factors for infectious complications using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The study included 2,718 patients, of whom 6% reported receiving antibiotics in the previous 6 months and 7.4% had a history of prostatitis. Recommended antibiotic prophylaxis consisting of 2 fluoroquinolone tablets 2 hours before examination for prostate biopsy was noted in 78.3% of cases. Post-biopsy sepsis was found in 76 subjects (2.8%). On multivariate analysis predictors of post-biopsy sepsis were noncompliance with antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4-3.9, p = 0.001), antibiotic treatment in the previous 6 months (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-3.9, p = 0.015) and a history of prostatitis (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.4, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In this study the incidence of post-prostate biopsy sepsis was 2.8% and no deaths were reported. Risk factors identified on multivariate analysis were noncompliance with antibiotic prophylaxis according to guidelines, antibiotic treatment in the previous 6 months and a history of prostatitis.
Assuntos
Próstata/patologia , Sepse/epidemiologia , Sepse/etiologia , Idoso , Biópsia/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Medição de RiscoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) and the predictive factors of treatment failure in patients with refractory urinary retention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2006 to December 2013, we prospectively included all patients treated by PVP preoperatively catheterized for urinary retention. The primary end point was the number of patients free of indwelling catheters 3 months after the procedure. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the predictive factors of treatment failure. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-two patients were included in the final analysis. The percentage of patients free of indwelling catheters was 91.5% 3 months after PVP. Two factors were identified as predictive of treatment failure at 3 months in multivariate analysis: a smaller preoperative ultrasonographic prostate volume (UPV; odds ratio [OR] = 0.91; P = .008) and a higher volume of primary urinary retention (OR = 1.03; P = .003). Forty-two patients (27.6%) required early recatheterization within 7 days after surgery. Smaller UPV was the only predictive factor of treatment failure in the early postoperative in multivariate analysis (OR = 0.97; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Nearly one-third of patients treated for refractory urinary retention fail the first trial without catheter after PVP, but 91.5% are free of indwelling catheter 3 months after surgery. A smaller preoperative UPV and a higher retention volume were predictive of PVP failure in patients with preoperative indwelling catheters.