Prostate Biopsy, Transperineal Access under Local Anesthesia

Abstract

Objective Prostate biopsy is an essencial aid in cancer diagnosis, and the the most widely-used method is known as transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy, with a diagnostic rate ranging from 37% to 45%; however, it is not free of complications such as infections, pain, or bleeding. The alternative and safe approach lies in the transpineal biopsy (TPB), commonly performed under regional or general anesthesia. The objetive of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of TPBunder local anesthesia and transrectal ultrasound guidance, with the impact of the sensitiviy of the study and the rate of hospital readmission due to infection. Methods Retrospective cohort study in which 83 patients underwent TPB with local anesthesia and transrectal ultrasound guidance from january 2017 and august 2018 in an intermediate city in Colombia. The sample included all male subjects older than 18 years of age with medical history data available for analysis, as well as the histopathological reports of the biopsies. Cases of rebiopsy or with insufficient data were excluded. The analysis of the nominal data was performed using the chi-squared test, and that of the numerical data, with the Student t or the Mann-Whitney test. Results A total of 83 patientswith an average age was of 65 ± + 7.9 years, had their histopathological studies analyzed. We excluded nine patients who did not have information available in the systematized clinical registry nor in the medical history in physical format. Positivity and a diagnosis of prostate cancer was found in 39.7% (33) of the patients, who were distributed like this: grade group 1 (69.7%; 23); grade group 2 (15.2%; 5); grade groups 3 and 4 (each with 3%; 2); and grade group 5 (9%; 3). In total, 60% (50) were negative for malignancy, and, of these, 54% (27) had glandulostromal hyperplasia. The indicated prophylactic antibiotic in 96.7% (80) of the cases was a first generation cephalosporin and, in 15% (12) of the cases it was administered through a preoperative parenteral route. Hospital admissions after the procedure associated with infection were not documented in the present series of cases. Conclusions Transperineal prostate biopsy is a technique with diagnostic performance similar to that of the transrectal approach: it is safe, fast, easy to access, has a low cost and, above all, presents a minimum risk of infection and sepsis. Its benefits are highly representative in a health system like that of our country, and TPB facilitates the access of the vulnerable population of the rural area and of intermediate cities in which there is no availability of an expert urologist.