Condom perforation during transrectal ultrasound guided (TRUS) prostate biopsies: a potential infection risk
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsies are amongst the most common outpatient diagnostic procedures performed in urology practice. Of concern appear to be recent reports of infectious complications following this procedure in which contamination of the biopsy equipment was the likely source. This study looks at the rate of condom perforation during prostate biopsy and we look to highlight the potential problems, which may arise as a result of inadequate cleansing of the equipment between cases during a busy prostate biopsy clinic
Material and methods
All patients attending for prostate biopsies over a three-month period in our institution were included in the study. All condoms (latex) used were made by the same manufacturer and were checked prior to the procedure and found to have no leaks. The biopsy gun was inserted through an externally placed needle guide, as is standard practice in many departments in the UK. After the end of each procedure the condom was removed from the rectal probe and filled once again with water to assess for perforations. Two experienced surgeons carried out all the procedures.
10 out of 107 patients were found to have at least one perforation in the condom. In some of the condoms there were multiple perforations.
We have demonstrated a significant condom perforation rate (9%) amongst patients undergoing prostate biopsies. This raises the serious issue of hygiene and cross infection, particularly with blood borne communicable diseases such as hepatitis and HIV unless strict disinfection and sterilization protocols are followed between patients. Perforation of the condoms used during TRUS guided prostate biopsy and hence faecal and blood contamination of the biopsy equipment could potentially have far-reaching implications for urologists and the infection control community. Although the risk of cross infection is probably small this serious issue needs addressing.
- Crundwell MC, Cooke PW, Wallace DM (1999) Patients’ tolerance of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy: an audit of 104 cases. BJU Int 83:792–795 CrossRef
- Puig J, Darnell A, Bermudez P, Malet A, Serrate G, Bare M, Prats J (2006) Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: is antibiotic prophylaxis necessary? Eur Radiol 16(4):939–943 CrossRef
- Gillespie J, Arnold KE, Kainer MA, Jensen B, Arduino M, Hageman J, Srinivasan A (2006) Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections associated with transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies— Georgia, 2005. CDC-MMRW 55(28):776–777
- Hutchinson J, Runge W, Mulvey M, Norris G, Yetman M, (2004) Valkova N et al Burkholderia cepacia infections associated with intrinsically contaminated ultrasound gel: the role of microbial degradation of parabens. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 25:291–296 CrossRef
- Amis S, Ruddy M, Kibbler CC, Economides DL, Maclean AB (2000) Assessment of condoms as probe covers for transvaginal sonography. J Clin Ultrasound 28(6):295–298 CrossRef
- Rutula WA, Weber DJ (2004) Disinfection and sterilization in health care facilities: what clinicians need to know. Clin Infect Dis 39:702–709 CrossRef
- Spaulding EH (1968) Chemical disinfection of medical and surgical materials chapter 32). In: Lawrence CA, Block SS (eds) Disinfection, sterilization and preservation. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, PA, pp 517–531
- Carey RF, Herman WA, Retta SM, Rinaldi JE, Herman BA, Athey TW (1992) Effectiveness of latex condoms as a barrier to human immunodeficiency virus sized particles under conditions of simulated use. Sex Transm Dis 19(4):239–244
- Condom perforation during transrectal ultrasound guided (TRUS) prostate biopsies: a potential infection risk
International Urology and Nephrology
Volume 39, Issue 4 , pp 1121-1124
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links