Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biopsie der Prostata und Punktion der Niere und Blase

Biopsies of the kidney, prostate and urinary bladder

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Biopsien und Punktionen an Niere, Prostata und Harnblase gehören zu den häufigsten Eingriffen in der Urologie. Eine korrekte Indikationsstellung, Vorbereitung und Durchführung ist wichtig für komplikationsarme Ergebnisse.

Ziel

In dieser Übersichtsarbeit wird das Komplikationsmanagement bei den Standardeingriffen Biopsie der Prostata und den Punktionen von Niere und Harnblase dargestellt.

Material und Methoden

Der Beitrag liefert eine selektive Literaturrecherche mit vorrangiger Berücksichtigung systematischer Übersichtarbeiten und größerer Fallstudien.

Ergebnisse

Obwohl die Komplikationsraten generell niedrig erscheinen, können bestimmte Umstände, wie Antikoagulation, anatomische Veränderungen, Begleitmorbiditäten oder Antibiotikaresistenzen eine bedeutende Rolle spielen und die Komplikationshäufigkeiten erhöhen. Insbesondere Komplikationen wie Hämaturie und Verletzung von Nachbarorganen werden in der Literatur beschrieben.

Diskussion

Biopsien und Punktionen an Niere, Prostata und Harnblase können in der Regel komplikationsarm durchgeführt werden, wenn allgemeine und spezifische Faktoren in der Planung der Intervention und der Vermeidung von Komplikationen berücksichtigt werden.

Abstract

Background

Biopsies of the kidney, prostate and urinary bladder are amongst the most frequent interventions in urology. A correct indication, preparation and performance are important to achieve good results and low complication rates.

Objectives

In this review complication management in biopsies of the kidney, prostate and urinary bladder are discussed.

Materials and methods

A selective search of the literature, with emphasis on systematic reviews and larger cohort studies was performed.

Results

Complication rates are generally low. However, certain factors such as coagulation disorders, anatomical malformations, accompanying morbidities or antibiotic resistance may play a significant role and increase rates of complications. Especially complications such as hematuria and injury of contiguous organs are described in the literature.

Discussion

Biopsies of the kidney, prostate and urinary bladder can be performed with low complication rates if general and specific factors in the planning of the intervention and prevention of complications are considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. Wagenlehner FM, Oostrum E van, Tenke P et al (2013) Infective complications after prostate biopsy: outcome of the Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology (GPIU) 2010 and 2011, a prospective multinational multicentre prostate biopsy study. Eur Urol 63(3):521–527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU et al (2013) Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 64(6):876–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosario DJ, Lane JA, Metcalfe C et al (2012) Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ 344:7894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Janssens U (2012) Regionale und systemische Komplikationen. In: Anheuser P, Steffens J (Hrsg) Risiken und Komplikationen in der Urologie. Thieme, Stuttgart, S 26–35

  5. Hoffmeister HM,·Bode C,·Darius H et al (2010) Unterbrechung antithrombotischer Behandlung (Bridging) bei kardialen Erkrankungen. Kardiologe 4:365–374

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Loeb S (2012) Infection after transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: increased relative risks after recent international travel or antibiotic use. BJU Int 109(12):1785–1786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI et al (2011) Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 186(5):1830–1834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Loeb S, Heuvel S van den, Zhu X et al (2012) Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. Eur Urol 61(6):1110–1114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y et al (2010) Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 183(3):963–968

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y et al (2013) Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 189(1 Suppl):12–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wagenlehner FM, Pilatz A, Waliszewski P et al (2014) Reducing infection rates after prostate biopsy. Nat Rev Urol 11(2):80–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Steensels D, Slabbaert K, De Wever L et al (2012) Fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli in intestinal flora of patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy – should we reassess our practices for antibiotic prophylaxis? Clin Microbiol Infect 18(6):575–581

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Taylor AK, Zembower TR, Nadler RB et al (2012) Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis using rectal swab cultures in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy is associated with reduced incidence of postoperative infectious complications and cost of care. J Urol 187(4):1275–1279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen AH, Nast CC, Adler SG, Kopple JD (1989) Clinical utility of kidney biopsies in the diagnosis and management of renal disease. Am J Nephrol 9(4):309–315

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Koch K-M (2000) Klinische Nephrologie. Urban & Fischer, München

  16. Kuhlmann U, Walb D, Luft FC (1998) Nephrologie. Thieme, Stuttgart

  17. Radecka E, Magnusson A (2004) Complications associated with percutaneous nephrostomies. A retrospective study. Acta Radiol 45(2):184–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Corapi KM, Chen JL, Balk EM, Gordon CE (2012) Bleeding complications of native kidney biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 60(1):62–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Marwah DS, Korbet SM (1996) Timing of complications in percutaneous renal biopsy: what is the optimal period of observation? Am J Kidney Dis 28(1):47–52

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Grabe M (chairman) BM, Bjerklund-Johansen TE, Botto H et al (2010) Guidelines on urological infections. In: EAU (ed) European association of urology guidelines. European Association of Urology, Arnhem, pp 1–110

  21. Wagenlehner FME (2012) Komplikationen bei Punktion und Injektion. In: Anheuser P, Steffens J (Hrsg) Risiken und Komplikationen in der Urologie. Thieme, Stuttgart, S 78–82

  22. Lee KL, Stoller ML (2007) Minimizing and managing bleeding after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Curr Opin Urol 17(2):120–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ray AA, Chung DG, Honey RJ (2009) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the prone and prone-flexed positions: anatomic considerations. J Endourol 23(10):1607–1614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Saxby MF (1996) Biliary peritonitis following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Br J Urol 77(3):465–466

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Traxer O (2009) Management of injury to the bowel during percutaneous stone removal. J Endourol 23(10):1777–1780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. El-Nahas AR, Mansour AM, Ellaithy R, Abol-Enein H (2008) Case report: conservative treatment of liver injury during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22(8):1649–1652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Desai AC, Jain S, Benway BM et al (2010) Splenic injury during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a case report with novel management technique. J Endourol 24(4):541–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Shaban A, Kodera A, El Ghoneimy MN et al (2008) Safety and efficacy of supracostal access in percutaneous renal surgery. J Endourol 22(1):29–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Maheshwari PN, Mane DA, Pathak AB (2009) Management of pleural injury after percutaneous renal surgery. J Endourol 23(10):1769–1772

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Beetz R, Wagenlehner F (2012) Diagnostics and therapy of urinary tract infections. Urologe A 52(1):21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ringert RH, Gross AJ (1996) Bladder catheter or suprapubic fistula? Indications and contraindications. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl Kongressbd 113:713–717

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cho KH, Doo SW, Yang WJ et al (2010) Suprapubic cystostomy: risk analysis of possible bowel interposition through the percutaneous tract by computed tomography. Korean J Urol 51(10):709–712

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. F.M.E. Wagenlehner, W. Weidner, T. Diemer und B. Altinkilic geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Kinderurologie und Andrologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg GmbH, Standort Gießen, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Rudolf-Buchheim-Straße 7, 35385, Gießen, Deutschland

    F.M.E. Wagenlehner, W. Weidner, T. Diemer & B. Altinkilic

Authors
  1. F.M.E. Wagenlehner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W. Weidner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Diemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. Altinkilic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F.M.E. Wagenlehner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wagenlehner, F., Weidner, W., Diemer, T. et al. Biopsie der Prostata und Punktion der Niere und Blase. Urologe 53, 683–688 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-014-3478-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-014-3478-4

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation