Abstract
Purpose
To compare the procedural time and complication rate of coaxial technique with those of noncoaxial technique in transperineal prostate biopsy.
Materials and Methods
Transperineal prostate biopsy with coaxial (first group, n = 120) and noncoaxial (second group, n = 120) methods was performed randomly in 240 patients. The procedural time was recorded. The level of pain experienced during the procedure was assessed on a visual analogue scale (VAS), and the rate of complications was evaluated in comparison of the two methods.
Results
The procedural time was significantly shorter in the first group (p < 0.001). In the first group, pain occurred less frequently (p = 0.002), with a significantly lower VAS score being experienced (p < 0.002). No patient had post procedural fever. Haematuria (p = 0.029) and haemorrhage from the site of biopsy (p < 0.001) were seen less frequently in the first group. There was no significant difference in the rate of urethral haemorrhage between the two groups (p = 0.059). Urinary retention occurred less commonly in the first group (p = 0.029). No significant difference was seen in the rate of dysuria between the two groups (p = 0.078).
Conclusions
Transperineal prostate biopsy using a coaxial needle is a faster and less painful method with a lower rate of complications compared with conventional noncoaxial technique.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- VAS:
-
Visual analogue scale
- PSA:
-
Prostate-specific antigen
- BPH:
-
Benign prostatic hyperplasia
References
Kawakami S, Yamamoto S, Numao N, et al. Direct comparison between transrectal and transperineal extended prostate biopsy for the detection of cancer. Int J Urol. 2007;14:719–24.
Chang DT, Challacombe B, Lawrentschuk N. Transperineal biopsy of the prostate–is this the future? Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10:690–702.
Patel IJ, Davidson JC, Nikolic B, et al. Addendum of newer anticoagulants to the SIR consensus guideline. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24(5):641–5.
Novella G, Ficarra V, Galfano A, et al. Pain assessment after original transperineal prostate biopsy using a coaxial needle. Urology. 2003;62:689–92.
Galfano A, Novara G, Iafrate M, et al. Prostate biopsy: the transperineal approach. EAU-EBU Update Series. 2007;5:241–9.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:225–49.
Vis AN, Boerma MO, Ciatto S, et al. Detection of prostate cancer: a comparative study of the diagnostic efficacy of sextant transrectal versus sextant transperineal biopsy. Urology. 2000;56:617–21.
Emiliozzi P, Corsetti A, Tassi B, et al. Best approach for prostate cancer detection: a prospective study on transperineal versus transrectal six-core prostate biopsy. Urology. 2003;61:961–6.
Watanabe M, Hayashi T, Tsushima T, et al. Extensive biopsy using a combined transperineal and transrectal approach to improve prostate cancer detection. Int J Urol. 2005;12:959–63.
Kawakami S, Hyochi N, Yonese J, et al. Three-dimensional combination of transrectal and transperineal biopsies for efficient detection of stage T1c prostate cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2006;11:127–32.
Kawakami S, Okuno T, Yonese J, et al. Optimal sampling sites for repeat prostate biopsy: a recursive partitioning analysis of three-dimensional 26-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol. 2007;51:675–82.
Hatfield MK, Beres RA, Sane SS, et al. Percutaneous imaging-guided solid organ core needle biopsy: coaxial versus noncoaxial method. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(2):413–7.
Iremashvili VV, Chepurov AK, Kobaladze KM, et al. Periprostatic local anesthesia with pudendal block for transperineal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a randomized trial. Urology. 2010;75:1023–7.
Dimmen M, Vlatkovic L, Hole KH, et al. Transperineal prostate biopsy detects significant cancer in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and previous negative transrectal biopsies. BJU Int. 2012;110:E69–75.
Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, et al. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol. 2006;175:1605–12.
Watanabe M, Hayashi T, Tsushima T, et al. Extensive biopsy using a combined transperineal and transrectal approach to improve prostate cancer detection. Int J Urol. 2005;12:959–63.
Gershman B, Zietman AL, Feldman AS, et al. Transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy for patients with persistently elevated PSA and multiple prior negative biopsies. Urol Oncol. 2013;31:1093–7.
Merrick GS, Gutman S, Andreini H, et al. Prostate cancer distribution in patients diagnosed by transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy. Eur Urol. 2007;52:715–23.
Kawakami S, Kihara K, Fujii Y, et al. Transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal 14-core systematic biopsy detects apico-anterior cancer foci of T1c prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2004;11:613–8.
Acknowledgments
The authors have nothing to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the local Institutional Review Board committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
The written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Babaei Jandaghi, A., Habibzadeh, H., Falahatkar, S. et al. Transperineal Prostate Core Needle Biopsy: A Comparison of Coaxial Versus Noncoaxial Method in a Randomised Trial. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 39, 1736–1742 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-016-1437-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-016-1437-8