medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2011, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2011; 71 (2)

Ultrasound-guided transrectal prostate biopsy complication frequency

Castellanos-Hernández H, Cruz-García VP, Navarro VJC, Vázquez-Niño CL, Figueroa-Zarza M, De la Cruz-Gutiérrez SM, Velázquez-Macías RF, Landa-Soler M

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 81-86
PDF size: 146.65 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Prostate biopsy is the only procedure for establishing prostate cancer diagnosis. It is considered to be safe and is frequently performed as an out-patient procedure in the physician’s office. However, it presents with a complication rate that should not be ignored.
Methods: An analytical cross-sectional study was carried out that included one hundred seventeen patients with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who underwent transrectal biopsy of the prostate. Telephone interviews to obtain information about complications were carried out four weeks after procedure had been performed.
Results: A total of 71.8% of patients presented with macroscopic hematuria with mean duration of 2.74 ± 2.3 days and 33.3% of patients presented with rectal bleeding with mean duration of 1.62 ± 1.2 days. A total of 10.3% of patients presented with hematospermia, 5.1% of patients presented with episode of acute urine retention, 6% presented with fever, and 6.8% presented with lower urinary tract obstruction symptomatology. A total of 1.8% of patients presented with dizziness and diaphoresis.
Discussion: Complication frequency, especially of infectious complications, was low due to antibiotic prophylaxis managed in those patients, a fact that was correlated by studies of other authors.
Conclusions: Transrectal prostate biopsy is not innocuous and therefore it is necessary to evaluate the most frequent complications, both major and minor, of this procedure.


REFERENCES

  1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, Prostate Cancer V.2.2009. En: www.nccn.org.

  2. Zoyle P, d’Onofrio A, Maisonneuve P, et al. Measuring progress against cancer in Europe: has the 15% decline targeted for 2000 come about? Ann Oncol 2003;14:1312-25.

  3. Mohar A, Frías-Mendivil M, Suchil-Bernal L, et al. Epidemiología descriptiva de cáncer en el Instituto Nacional de Cancerología de México. Salud Pública Mex 1997;39:253-58.

  4. Dirección General de Epidemiología; SSA; Sistema Epidemiológico y Estadístico de las Defunciones, 2001 (Base de datos preliminar).

  5. Dirección General de Epidemiología; SSA; Compendio de Cáncer 2000.

  6. Levine MA, Ittman M, Melamed J, et al. Two Consecutive Sets of Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Sextant Biopsies of the Prostate for the Detection of Prostate Cancer. J Urol 1998;159:471-5.

  7. Emiliozzi P, Scarpone P, Depaula F, et al. The incidence of Prostate Cancer in Men With Prostate Specific Antigen greater than 4.0 ng/ml: A Randomized Study of 6 Versus 12 Core Transperineal Prostate Biopsy. J Urol 2004;171:197-9.

  8. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, et al. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989;142:71-4.

  9. Collins G N, Lloyd SN, Hehir M. et al. Multiple transrectal ultrasoundguided prostatic biopsies—true morbidity and patient acceptance. Br J Urol 1993;71:460-3.

  10. Djavan B, Waldert M, Zlotta A, et al. Safety and morbidity of first and repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsies: Results of a Prospective European Prostate Cancer Detection Study. J Urol 2001;166:856-60.

  11. Rodríguez LV, Terris KM. Risks and Complications of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy: a prospective study and review of the literature. J Urol 1998;160(6Pt1):2115-20.

  12. Berger PA, Gozzi C, Steiner H, et al. Complication rate of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: A Comparison Among 3 Protocols With 6, 10 and 15 Cores. J Urol 2004;171:1478-80.

  13. Luján GM, Páez BA, Fernández GI, et al. Efectos Adversos de la Biopsia Prostática Transrectal. Un Análisis de 303 Procedimientos. Actas Urol Esp 2001;25:46-9.

  14. Rodríguez-Patrón RR, Navas EE, Rodríguez-Navarro CQ, Mayayo DT. Meningitis por E. coli multirresistente tras biopsia transrectal ecodirigida. Actas Urol Esp 2003;27(4):305-7.

  15. Cooner, WH, Mosley BR, Rutherford CL, et al. Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen. J Urol 1990;143:1146-52;.

  16. Crawford ED, Haynes AL, Story MW, et al. Prevention of urinary tract infection and sepsis following transrectal prostatic biopsy. J Urol 1982;127:449-51.

  17. Davison P, Malament, M. Urinary contamination as a result of transrectal biopsy of the prostate. J Urol 1971;105:545-6.

  18. Ashby EC, Rees M, Dowding CH. Prophylaxis against systemic infection after transrectal biopsy for suspected prostatic carcinoma. Br Med J 1978;2:1263-4. Vallancien G, Prapotnich D, Veillon B. et al. Systematic prostatic biopsies in 100 men with no suspicion of cancer on digital rectal examination. J Urol 1991;146:1308-12.

  19. Sieber PR, Rommel FM, Agusta VE. et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in ultrasound guided transrectal prostate biopsy. J Urol 1997;157:2199-200.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com