Abstract
Purpose
To calculate the frequency of infection and acute urinary retention (AUR) following transperineal (TP) prostate biopsy at a single high-volume academic institution and determine risk factors for developing these post-biopsy conditions.
Methods
Men undergoing TP prostate biopsy from 2012 to 2022 at our institution were retrospectively identified and chart reviewed. TP biopsies were performed with TR ultrasound (TRUS) guidance with anesthesia using a brachytherapy grid template. TRUS volumes were recorded during the procedure, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) volumes were calculated using the ellipsoid formula. When available, MRI volume was used for all analysis, and when absent, TRUS volume was used. AUR was defined as requiring urinary catheter placement within 72 h post-biopsy for inability to urinate. Univariable analysis was performed and variables with p < 0.1 and/or established clinical relevance were included in a backward binary logistic regression to produce an optimized model that fit the data without collinearity between variables.
Results
A total of 767 TP biopsies were completed in the study window. The frequency of infection was 1.83% (N = 14/767). The total frequency of AUR was 5.48% (N = 42/767). On multivariable regression, patients who went into AUR were five times as likely to develop infection (p = 0.020). Patients with infection post-TP biopsy were four times as likely to develop AUR (p = 0.047) and with prostates > 61.21 cc were three times as likely (p = 0.019).
Conclusion
According to our model, AUR is the greatest risk factor for infection post-TP biopsy. With regard to AUR risks, infection post-biopsy and prostate size > 61.21 cc are the greatest risk factors.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A (2022) Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 72(1):7–33
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, de Santis M et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urology 79(2):243–262
Wagenlehner FME, van Oostrum E, Tenke P, Tandogdu Z, Çek M, Grabe M 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
Lindert KA, Kabalin JN, Terris MK (2000) Bacteremia and bacteriuria after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 164(1):76–80
Liss MA, Ehdaie B, Loeb S, Meng MV, Raman JD, Spears V et al (2017) An update of the american urological association white paper on the prevention and treatment of the more common complications related to prostate biopsy. J Urol 198(2):329–334
Efesoy O, Bozlu M, Çayan S, Akbay E (2013) Complications of transrectal ultrasound-guided 12-core prostate biopsy: a single center experience with 2049 patients. Turk Uroloji Dergisi 39(1):6–11
Skouteris VM, Crawford ED, Mouraviev V, Arangua P, Metsinis MP, Skouteris M et al (2018) Transrectal ultrasound-guided versus transperineal mapping prostate biopsy: complication comparison. Rev Urol 20(1):19–25
Miah S, Eldred-Evans D, Simmons LAM, Shah TT, Kanthabalan A, Arya M et al (2018) Patient reported outcome measures for transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies in the picture study. J Urol 200(6):1235–1240
Young R, Norris B, Reeves F, Peters JS (2019) A retrospective comparison of transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsies: experience of a single surgeon. J Endourol 33(6):498–502
Berry B, Parry MG, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Cowling TE, Aggarwal A et al (2020) Comparison of complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population-based study. BJU Int 126(1):97–103
Derin O, Fonseca L, Sanchez-Salas R, Roberts MJ (2020) Infectious complications of prostate biopsy: winning battles but not war. World J Urol 38(11):2743–2753
Forsvall A, Jönsson H, Wagenius M, Bratt O, Linder A (2021) Rate and characteristics of infection after transrectal prostate biopsy: a retrospective observational study. Scand J Urol 55(4):317–323
Jacewicz M, Günzel K, Rud E, Sandbæk G, Magheli A, Busch J et al (2022) Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no antibiotic prophylaxis in transperineal prostate biopsies (NORAPP): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis 22(10):1465–1471
Huang GL, Kang CH, Lee WC, Chiang PH (2019) Comparisons of cancer detection rate and complications between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy approaches—a single center preliminary study. BMC Urol 19(1):101
Ding XF, Luan Y, Lu SM, Zhou GC, Huang TB, Zhu LY et al (2021) Risk factors for infection complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy. World J Urol 39(7):2463–2467
Castellani D, Pirola GM, Law YXT, Gubbiotti M, Giulioni C, Scarcella S et al (2022) Infection rate after transperineal prostate biopsy with and without prophylactic antibiotics: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. J Urol 207(1):25–34
Kum F, Jones A, Nigam R (2019) Factors influencing urinary retention after transperineal template biopsy of the prostate: outcomes from a regional cancer centre. World J Urol 37(2):337–342
Pinkstaff DM, Igel TC, Petrou SP, Broderick GA, Wehle MJ, Young PR (2005) Systematic transperineal ultrasound-guided template biopsy of the prostate: three-year experience. Urology 65(4):735–739
Pepe P, Aragona F (2013) Morbidity after transperineal prostate biopsy in 3000 patients undergoing 12 vs 18 vs more than 24 needle cores. Urology 81(6):1142–1146
Buskirk SJ, Pinkstaff DM, Petrou SP, Wehle MJ, Broderick GA, Young PR et al (2004) Acute urinary retention after transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59(5):1360–1366
Sung SH, Lee CU, Chung JH, Song W, Kang M, Sung HH et al (2021) Predictive factors for acute urinary retention after transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy. The Korean J of Urol Oncol 19(3):148–154
Huang H, Wang W, Lin T, Zhang Q, Zhao X, Lian H et al (2016) Comparison of the complications of traditional 12 cores transrectal prostate biopsy with image fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy. BMC Urol 16(1):68
Choe S, Patel HD, Lanzotti N, Okabe Y, Rac G, Shea SM et al (2023) MRI vs transrectal ultrasound to estimate prostate volume and psad: impact on prostate cancer detection. Urology 171:172–178
Shoag JE, Gaffney C, Pantuck M, Sun T, Gorin M, Schaeffer E et al (2020) Risk factors for infection after prostate biopsy in the United States. Urology 138:113–118
Awedew AF, Han H, Abbasi B, Abbasi-Kangevari M, Ahmed MB, Almidani O et al (2022) The global, regional, and national burden of benign prostatic hyperplasia in 204 countries and territories from 2000 to 2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet Healthy Longev 3(11):754–776
Sahin C, Eryildirim B, Cetinel AC, Faydaci G, Narter F, Goktas C et al (2015) Does metabolic syndrome increase the risk of infective complications after prostate biopsy? A critical evaluation Int Urol Nephrol 47(3):423–429
Carignan A, Roussy JF, Lapointe V, Valiquette L, Sabbagh R, Pépin J (2012) Increasing risk of infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: time to reassess antimicrobial prophylaxis? Eur Urol 62(3):453–459
Loeb S, van den Heuvel S, Zhu X, Bangma CH, Schröder FH, Roobol MJ (2012) Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. Eur Urol 61(6):1110–1114
Ghafoori M, Velayati M, Ghasabeh MA, Shakiba M, Alavi M (2015) Prostate biopsy using transrectal ultrasonography; the optimal number of cores regarding cancer detection rate and complications. Iran J of Radiol 12(2):13257
Lin SL, te Lin C, Huang WT, Jou YC, Tzai TS, Tsai YS (2019) History of urinary retention is a risk factor for infection after prostate biopsy: a nationwide, population-based cohort study. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 20(3):202–207
Huang S, Reeves F, Preece J, Satasivam P, Royce P, Grummet JP (2015) Significant impact of transperineal template biopsy of the prostate at a single tertiary institution. Urol Ann 7(4):428–432
Chiu PKF, Ahmed HU, Rastinehad AR (2022) TRUS biopsy vs transperineal biopsy for suspicion of prostate cancer. Urology 164:18–20
Ross A, Schaeffer E (2022) Moving transperineal prostate biopsy into the clinic. Urol Times Journal 50(3):1
Sigle A, Suarez-Ibarrola R, Pudimat M, Michaelis J, Jilg CA, Miernik A et al (2021) Safety and side effects of transperineal prostate biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis. Urol Oncol: Semin and Orig Investigations 39(11):782
Funding
No funding was used for this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Maxwell Sandberg headed the project and delegated tasks and assisted in writing the first draft of the manuscript. Wyatt Whitman, Maxwell Sandberg, Jacob Greenberg, and Matvey Tsivian ran statistical analysis for the project. Janmejay Hingu, Parth Thakker, Anita Rong, Caleb Bercu, and Hannah Dabagian did a literature review for the manuscript and outlined the manuscript. All authors did chart review for data analysis on this project. Ronald Davis III, Ashok Hemal, Matvey Tsivian, and Alejandro Rodriguez provided expertise in oncology for writing the background of the paper. All authors reviewed the first draft of the manuscript and provided edits. All authors approved the final draft of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This retrospective chart review involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Human Investigation Committee (IRB) of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist approved this study under IRB00087534. The need for written informed consent to participate was waived by the Wake Forest Baptist IRB ethics committee due to retrospective nature of the study.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Sandberg, M., Whitman, W., Greenberg, J. et al. Risk factors for infection and acute urinary retention following transperineal prostate biopsy. Int Urol Nephrol 56, 819–826 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-023-03854-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-023-03854-0