Der Urologe

, Volume 56, Issue 6, pp 759–763 | Cite as

Infektionsprophylaxe bei der Prostatastanzbiopsie

Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Verschiedene Strategien existieren, um Infektionskomplikationen nach Prostatastanzbiopsie zu reduzieren. Hierbei sind an technischen Aspekten die Anzahl der Biopsiezylinder, die Größe der Nadel, der Biopsiezugang, eine begleitende lokale Infiltrationsanästhesie, abführende Maßnahmen und intrarektale Desinfektionsmaßnahmen mit Povidon-Jod zu nennen. Auf antibiotischer Ebene stellen sich Fragen nach dem optimalen Antibiotikum, der Dauer der Prophylaxe, einer antibiotischen Kombinationstherapie und einer zielgerichteten Antibiotikatherapie auf der Basis eines Rektalabstrichs. Die vorliegende Übersichtsarbeit gibt Antworten zu den verschiedenen Aspekten.

Schlüsselwörter

Infektionen Prostatakarzinom Urosepsis Antibiotika Kombinationstherapie 

Prophylaxis of infectious complications following prostate biopsy

Abstract

Different strategies have been developed to reduce infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Various technical aspects like number of biopsies, needle size, route of biopsy, periprostatic nerve blockade, rectal preparation by enema, or disinfection with povidone-iodine have to be discussed. Regarding antibiotic therapy, choosing the optimal antibiotic, the duration of prophylaxis, combination therapy, and rectal swab-based antimicrobial therapy are of major interest. The current review gives answers to the different aspects.

Keywords

Infections Prostate cancer Urosepsis Antibiotics Combination therapy 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

A. Pilatz ist Erstautor des laufenden systematischen Cochrane Reviews [12]. G. Lüdecke und F. Wagenlehner geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Aus G, Ahlgren G, Bergdahl S et al (1996) Infection after transrectal core biopsies of the prostate – risk factors and antibiotic prophylaxis. Br J Urol 77(6):851–855CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennett HY, Roberts MJ, Doi SA et al (2016) The global burden of major infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Epidemiol Infect 144:1784–1791CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown RW, Warner JJ, Turner BI et al (1981) Bacteremia and bacteriuria after transrectal prostatic biopsy. Urology 18(2):145–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caskurlu T, Arikan O, Yildirim A et al (2015) Prevalence of antibiotic resistance in fecal flora before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and clinical impact of targeted antibiotic prophylaxis. J Urol 193:e594 (Conference: 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Urological Association, AUA New Orleans, 15.–19. Mai 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cussans A, Somani BK, Basarab A et al (2016) The role of targeted prophylactic antimicrobial therapy before transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy in reducing infection rates: a systematic review. BJU Int 117:725–731CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fahmy AM, Kotb A, Youssif TA et al (2016) Fosfomycin antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a prospective randomised study. Arab J Urol 14:228–233CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li M, Wang Z, Li H et al (2017) Local anesthesia for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep 7:40421CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lista F, Redondo C, Meilan E et al (2014) Efficacy and safety of fosfomycin-trometamol in the prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. Prospective randomized comparison with ciprofloxacin. Actas Urol Esp 38:391–396PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI et al (2011) Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 186:1830–1834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y et al (2010) Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 183:963–968CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pilatz A, Hossain H, Kaiser R et al (2015) Acute epididymitis revisited: impact of molecular diagnostics on etiology and contemporary guideline recommendations. Eur Urol 68:428–435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pilatz A, Pradere B, Yuan C et al (2015) Which strategies are effective for reducing the risk of infective complications in men undergoing prostate biopsy? http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/26354_PROTOCOL_20150821.pdf. Zugegriffen: 24.04.2017Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pu C, Bai Y, Yuan H et al (2014) Reducing the risk of infection for transrectal prostate biopsy with povidone-iodine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol 46:1691–1698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ruebush ITK, Mcconville JH, Calia FM (1979) A double-blind study of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis in patients having transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate. J Urol 122:492–494PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sen V, Aydogdu O, Bozkurt IH et al (2015) The use of prophylactic single-dose fosfomycin in patients who undergo transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a prospective, randomized, and controlled clinical study. Can Urol Assoc J 9:E863–E867CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shen PF, Zhu YC, Wei WR et al (2012) The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl 14:310–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wagenlehner FME, Van Oostrum E, 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 63:521–527CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang L, Zhu Y, Tang Z et al (2015) Antibiotics may not decrease prostate-specific antigen levels or prevent unnecessary prostate biopsy in patients with moderately increased prostate-specific antigen levels: a meta-analysis. Urol Oncol 33:201.e17–201.e24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang L, Tang Z, Gao L et al (2016) The augmented prophylactic antibiotic could be more efficacious in patients undergoing transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol 48:1197–1207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zani EL, Clark OA, Rodrigues Netto N Jr. (2011) Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi: 10.1002/14651858.cd006576.pub2 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Kinderurologie und AndrologieJustus-Liebig-Universität GießenGießenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations