Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Size of the transrectal ultrasound probe makes no difference in pain perception during TRUS-Bx under adequate local anesthesia

  • Urology – Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and objectives

In the great majority of the cases, transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) is the definitive step in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (CaP). Although this procedure is well tolerated by most patients, it can result in considerable discomfort that can effectively be overcome with local injection anesthesia. In this study, we evaluated the effect of the size (i.e., circumference) of the transrectal probe on pain during TRUS-Bx.

Material and methods

One hundred and seventy eligible patients who had elevated total prostate specific antigen (tPSA) and/or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) were included in this study. Patients (pts.) were divided into three TRUS-Bx groups; Group I: 60 pts. underwent TRUS-Bx with newer B–K Type 8808 probe (circumference 58 mm) under injectable periprostatic anesthesia, Group II: 60 pts. underwent TRUS-Bx with B–K Type 8551 probe (circumference 74 mm) under injectable periprostatic anesthesia, and Group III: 50 pts. underwent TRUS-Bx with B–K Type 8551 probe (circumference 74 mm) without local anesthesia. Periprostatic injection anesthesia was performed with 10 cc, 1% lidocaine (5 cc on each side) 10 min before TRUS-Bx. Pain was assessed using a 10-point modified visual analog scale (VAS) 15 min after the biopsy procedure.

Results

Three groups were homogeneous with respect to age and tPSA, and no statistically significant difference was observed in terms of mean biopsy duration between the 3 groups. Most of the patients experienced no pain to slight pain in Groups I and II, but 66% of the patients had more than moderate pain (VAS ≥ 5) in Group III with mean VAS score statistically higher than the other two groups (Group I vs. III, P = 0.0001; Group II vs. III, P = 0.0001). Mean VAS score was not statistically different between Group I and II (P = 0.126). No statistically significant difference in VAS pain perception was observed between different age categories within the Group I, II, and III.

Conclusion

In the absence of injectable local anesthesia, larger probe (74 mm) results in much higher VAS pain perception than same size and smaller (58 mm) probe used under injectable local anesthesia. However, under injectable local anesthesia, the size (circumference) of the transrectal probe (58 mm vs. 74 mm) does not result in any different pain perception during TRUS-Bx.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Issa MM, Bux S, Chun T et al (2000) A randomized prospective trial of intrarectal lidocaine for pain control during transrectal prostate biopsy: The Emory University experience. J Urol 164:397–399

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Irani J, Fournier F, Bon D et al (1997) Patient tolerance of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate. Br J Urol 79:608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Leibovici D, Zisman A, Siegel YI et al (2002) Local anesthesia for prostate biopsy by periprostatic lidocaine injection: a double-blind placebo controlled study. J Urol 167:563–565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ozveri H, Cevik I, Dillioglugil O et al (2003) Transrectal periprostatic lidocaine injection anesthesia for transrectal prostate biopsy: as prospective study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 6:311–314

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cevik I, Dillioglugil O, Zisman et al (2006) Combined “periprostatic and peri-apical” local anesthesia is not superior to “periprostatic” anesthesia alone in reducing pain during tru-cut prostate biopsy. 68:1215–1219

  6. Inal G, Adsan O, Ugurlu O et al (2008) Comparison of four different anesthesia methods for relief of all pain during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Int Urol Nephrol 40:335–339

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cevik I, Ozveri H, Dillioglugil O et al (2002) Lack of effect of intrarectal lidocaine for pain control during transrectal prostate biopsy: a randomized prospective study. Eur Urol 42:217–220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Naughton CK, Miller DC, Mager DE, et al A prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: impact on cancer detection. J Urol 164:388–392

  9. Kandirali E, Ulukaradag E, Uysal B et al (2009) Is only anesthesia with lidocaine-prilocaine cream sufficient to decrease the pain during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy? A prospective randomized study. Urol Int 82:262–265

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pendleton J, Costa J, Wludyka P et al (2006) Combination of oral tramadol, acetaminophen and 1% lidocaine induced periprostatic nerve block for pain control during transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. A prospective randomized controlled trial. J Urol 176:1372

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bozlu M, Atici S, Ulusoy E et al (2004) Periprostatic lidocaine infiltration and/or synthetic opioid (meperidine or tramadol) administration have no analgesic benefit during prostate biopsy. A prospective randomized, placebo-controlled study comparing different methods. Urol Int 72:308–311

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bingqian L, Peihuan L, Yudong W et al (2009) Intraprostatic local anesthesia with periprostatic nerve block for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 182:479–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee HY, Lee HJ, Byun SS et al (2007) Effect of intraprostatic local anesthesia during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Comparison of 3 methods in a randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trial. J Urol 178:469

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cam K, Sener M, Kayikci A et al (2008) Combined periprostatic, intraprostatic local anesthesia for prostate biopsy: a randomized, double-blind placebo controlled study. J Urol 180:141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Anesthesiology and Urology, Yeni Yuzyil University School of Medicine, Bagdat Cad. No. 448 KAT: 1, 81070, Suadiye-Istanbul, Turkey

    Sefik Koprulu, Ibrahim Cevik & Nuri Unlu

  2. School of Medicine Department of Urology, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey

    Ozdal Dillioglugil

Authors
  1. Sefik Koprulu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ibrahim Cevik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nuri Unlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ozdal Dillioglugil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ibrahim Cevik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koprulu, S., Cevik, I., Unlu, N. et al. Size of the transrectal ultrasound probe makes no difference in pain perception during TRUS-Bx under adequate local anesthesia. Int Urol Nephrol 44, 29–33 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-011-9993-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-011-9993-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation