Developing a five-step training model for transperineal prostate biopsies in a naïve residents’ group: a prospective observational randomised study of two different techniques
To evaluate a five-step training model for transperineal prostate biopsies (TPPB) and the differences in terms of the detection rate (DR) and the ease of execution when using either the “fan technique” (FT) or the use of a Free Hand technique (FH).
A prospective observational randomised study was conducted from September 2015 to November 2017. Six naïve residents, who underwent the same five-steps training model, were randomly subdivided into two different groups of three residents based on the selected TPPB technique: A (FT) and B (FH). Patient characteristics (age, PSA, prostatic volume, DRE, MRI), intraoperative (operative time, number of samples) and postoperative parameters (histologic, pain) were evaluated in the 2 groups. The overall and stratified DR for PSA ranges and prostate volume (PV), operative time and complications were compared.
The overall detection rate was very high in both groups (FT 58.2% vs FH 59.6%) and not statistically different between the two techniques. There were no differences in terms of complication rates and pain. The FH showed a better detection rate in prostates smaller than 40 cc (p = 0.023) and a faster operative time (p = 0.025) compared to FT.
Within the TPPB, FH is associated with a higher detection rate in patients with prostate < 40 cc compared to an FT when performed by inexperienced trainees. Standardised training organised in consecutive steps seems to contribute to the achievement of overall high detection rates with both methods.
KeywordsProstate cancer Prostate biopsy Transperineal prostate biopsy Training Residents
GM Project development, data analysis and manuscript writing. AP Data collection and data analysis. RA Data collection and data analysis. MC Data collection and data analysis. FD Data collection and data analysis. AO Data collection and data analysis. GP Manuscript editing. GP Manuscript editing. MM Manuscript editing. CT Project development and manuscript editing.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Bonkat G, Pickard R, Bartoletti R, et al. (2018) EAU Guidelines on urological infections. European Association of Urology. https://uroweb.org/guideline/urological-infections
- 19.Somani BK, Van Cleynenbreugel B, Gozen A, Palou J, Barmoshe S, Biyani S, Gaya JM, Hellawell G, Pini G, Oscar FR, Sanchez Salas R, Macek P, Skolarikos A, Wagner C, Eret V, Haensel S, Siena G, Schmidt M, Klitsch M, Vesely S, Ploumidis A, Proietti S, Kamphuis G, Tokas T, Geraghty R, Veneziano D (2018) The European urology residents education programme hands-on training format: 4 years of hands-on training improvements from the European school of urology. Eur Urol Focus S2405–4569(18):30080–30084Google Scholar
- 20.Garde Garcia H, Ortiz Oshiro E, Ciappara Paniagua M, Poma Medrano L, Fuentes Ferrer M, Vera Gonzalez V, Moreno Sierra J (2014) Interest areas for training in endourology, laparoscopy and robotics: results of a multicentric survey among Spanish residents. Arch Esp Urol 67(8):673–683PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Furuno T, Demura T, Kaneta T, Gotoda H, Muraoka S, Sato T, Nagamori S, Shinohara N, Koyanagi T (2004) Difference of cancer core distribution between first and repeat biopsy: In patients diagnosed by extensive transperineal ultrasound guided template prostate biopsy. Prostate 58(1):76–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar