Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Transrectal-ultrasound prostatic biopsy preparation: rectal enema vs. mechanical bowel preparation.
De Nunzio, Cosimo; Lombardo, Riccardo; Presicce, Fabrizio; Bellangino, Mariangela; Finazzi Agro, Enrico; Gambrosier, Matteo Bonetto; Trucchi, Alberto; Petta, Stefano; Tubaro, Andrea.
Afiliação
  • De Nunzio C; Ospedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
  • Lombardo R; Ospedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
  • Presicce F; Ospedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
  • Bellangino M; Ospedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
  • Finazzi Agro E; Policlinico Torvegata, Roma, Italia.
  • Gambrosier MB; Ospedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
  • Trucchi A; Ospedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
  • Petta S; Ospedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
  • Tubaro A; Ospedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
Cent European J Urol ; 68(2): 223-8, 2015.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26251750
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Transrectal prostate biopsy (TRUSbx) is the standard for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Different bowel preparations are used for patients undergoing TRUSbx. The aim of our study was to compare two different bowel preparations for TRUSbx. MATERIAL AND

METHODS:

From May 2012 and onwards, a selected group of men undergoing TRUS 12-core prostate biopsy were enrolled into a prospective database. Patients were randomized 11 to receive a rectal enema (Group A) the night before the procedure or polyethylene glycol 34.8 grams/4 liters of water the day before the procedure (Group B). A VAS scale to evaluate the patients' discomfort according to the two preparations was collected. The same antibiotic prophylaxis was performed in both groups. All complications were prospectively recorded and graded according to the Clavien Classification System (CCS).

RESULTS:

A total of 198 patients were consecutively enrolled. Mean age was 67.5 ±7.9 years, mean body mass index (BMI) was 27.1 ±4.2 Kg/m(2), mean PSA value was 9.3 ±12.6 ng/ml and the mean prostatic volume was 60.6 ±29 ml. 97 patients were enrolled in Group A and 101 in Group B. Overall post-biopsy morbidity rate was 60%. No significant differences for low-grade and high-grade complications was observed between the two groups. Patients receiving the rectal enema presented with a significantly lower VAS score (3.1 ±1.1 vs. 5.9 ±1.7; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS:

Our study confirmed that a rectal enema should be considered as the standard bowel preparation in patients undergoing a TRUS biopsy; it is as effective as PEG and associated with less discomfort.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2015 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2015 Tipo de documento: Article