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 1:1 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/m2, 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.

Transrectal-ultrasound prostatic biopsy preparation. Rectal enema vs. mechanical bowel preparation / De Nunzio, C.; Lombardo, R.; Presicce, F.; Bellangino, M.; Agro, E. F.; Gambrosier, M. B.; Trucchi, A.; Petta, S.; Tubaro, A.. - In: CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY. - ISSN 2080-4806. - 68:2(2015), pp. 223-228. [10.5173/ceju.2015.608]

Transrectal-ultrasound prostatic biopsy preparation. Rectal enema vs. mechanical bowel preparation

De Nunzio C.
;
Lombardo R.;Presicce F.;Bellangino M.;Trucchi A.;Petta S.;Tubaro A.
2015

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 1:1 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/m2, 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.
2015
complications; polyethylene glycol; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer; rectal enema
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Transrectal-ultrasound prostatic biopsy preparation. Rectal enema vs. mechanical bowel preparation / De Nunzio, C.; Lombardo, R.; Presicce, F.; Bellangino, M.; Agro, E. F.; Gambrosier, M. B.; Trucchi, A.; Petta, S.; Tubaro, A.. - In: CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY. - ISSN 2080-4806. - 68:2(2015), pp. 223-228. [10.5173/ceju.2015.608]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
DeNunzio_Transrectal-ultrasound_2015.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 482.85 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
482.85 kB Adobe PDF   Contatta l'autore

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1339699
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 12
social impact