Patient Reported Outcomes of Transperineal Prostate Biopsy With Tumescent Local Anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: To report the outcomes of performing transperineal prostate biopsy in the office setting using the novel anesthetic technique of tumescent local anesthesia. We report anxiety, pain, and embarrassment of patients who underwent this procedure compared to patients who underwent a transrectal prostate biopsy using standard local anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing either a transperineal prostate biopsy under tumescent local anesthesia or a transrectal prostate biopsy with standard local anesthetic technique were prospectively enrolled. The tumescent technique employed dilute lidocaine solution administered using a self-filling syringe. Patients were asked to rate their pain before, during, and after their procedure using a visual analog scale. Patient anxiety and embarrassment was assessed using the Testing Modalities Index Questionnaire. RESULTS: Between April 2021 and June 2022, 430 patients underwent a transperineal prostate biopsy using tumescent local anesthesia and 65 patients underwent a standard transrectal prostate biopsy. Patients who underwent a transperineal biopsy had acceptable but significantly higher pain scores than those who underwent a transrectal prostate biopsy (3.9 vs 1.6, P-value <.01). These scores fell to almost zero immediately following their procedure. Additionally, transperineal biopsy patients were more likely to experience anxiety (71% vs 45%, P < .01) and embarrassment (32% vs 15%, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Transperineal biopsy using local tumescent anesthesia is safe and well-tolerated. Despite the benefits, patients undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy under tumescent anesthesia still experienced worse procedural pain, anxiety, and embarrassment. Additional studies examining other adjunctive interventions to improve patient experience during transperineal prostate biopsy are needed.

Interdisciplinary Representation of Burn Surgery Journal and Society Leadership.

Burn care is a complex craft that requires an interdisciplinary approach. It includes a diverse array of specialty providers to provide holistic, specialized care to burn victims. This study aims to evaluate the diverse array of subspecialties involved in burn surgery journal and society leadership. A cross-sectional study was conducted in July 2019 by examining the characteristics of society and journal leaders. Current governance and committee members of the American Burn Association (ABA) and International Society of Burn Injuries (ISBI) were determined, as well as the editors of five major burn journals. Information gathered included occupation, advanced degrees obtained, and type of residency training. Of 384 editorial board members identified, 76% were physicians (n = 291), with specialties including burn surgery (n = 208, 54%) and anesthesiology (n = 22, 6%). Among nonphysicians (n = 78, 20%), 76% were medical researchers (n = 59), 8% physical therapists (n = 6), and 5% nurses (n = 4). Looking at ABA and ISBI governance (n = 29), 82% were physicians (n = 24). Nonphysician ABA and ISBI leaders were nurses (n = 2, 7%) and occupational therapists (n = 2, 7%). Of 467 identified ABA and ISBI committee members, half were physicians (n = 244, 52%). There was a wide array of nonphysician occupations among committee members, from nurses (n = 99, 21%), to occupational therapists (n = 25, 5%), and even firefighters (n = 6, 1%). Burn surgery journal and society leadership reflect the interdisciplinary nature of burn care by including an array of subspecialties. Yet, physicians tend to dominate academic burn leadership in comparison to other disciplines, highlighting the need for more nonphysician representation in leadership positions.