Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Condom perforation during transrectal ultrasound guided (TRUS) prostate biopsies: a potential infection risk

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

Abstract

Introduction

Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsies are amongst the most common outpatient diagnostic procedures performed in urology practice. Of concern appear to be recent reports of infectious complications following this procedure in which contamination of the biopsy equipment was the likely source. This study looks at the rate of condom perforation during prostate biopsy and we look to highlight the potential problems, which may arise as a result of inadequate cleansing of the equipment between cases during a busy prostate biopsy clinic

Material and methods

All patients attending for prostate biopsies over a three-month period in our institution were included in the study. All condoms (latex) used were made by the same manufacturer and were checked prior to the procedure and found to have no leaks. The biopsy gun was inserted through an externally placed needle guide, as is standard practice in many departments in the UK. After the end of each procedure the condom was removed from the rectal probe and filled once again with water to assess for perforations. Two experienced surgeons carried out all the procedures.

Results

10 out of 107 patients were found to have at least one perforation in the condom. In some of the condoms there were multiple perforations.

Discussion

We have demonstrated a significant condom perforation rate (9%) amongst patients undergoing prostate biopsies. This raises the serious issue of hygiene and cross infection, particularly with blood borne communicable diseases such as hepatitis and HIV unless strict disinfection and sterilization protocols are followed between patients. Perforation of the condoms used during TRUS guided prostate biopsy and hence faecal and blood contamination of the biopsy equipment could potentially have far-reaching implications for urologists and the infection control community. Although the risk of cross infection is probably small this serious issue needs addressing.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Crundwell MC, Cooke PW, Wallace DM (1999) Patients’ tolerance of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy: an audit of 104 cases. BJU Int 83:792–795

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Puig J, Darnell A, Bermudez P, Malet A, Serrate G, Bare M, Prats J (2006) Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: is antibiotic prophylaxis necessary? Eur Radiol 16(4):939–943

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gillespie J, Arnold KE, Kainer MA, Jensen B, Arduino M, Hageman J, Srinivasan A (2006) Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections associated with transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies— Georgia, 2005. CDC-MMRW 55(28):776–777

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hutchinson J, Runge W, Mulvey M, Norris G, Yetman M, (2004) Valkova N et al Burkholderia cepacia infections associated with intrinsically contaminated ultrasound gel: the role of microbial degradation of parabens. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 25:291–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Amis S, Ruddy M, Kibbler CC, Economides DL, Maclean AB (2000) Assessment of condoms as probe covers for transvaginal sonography. J Clin Ultrasound 28(6):295–298

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rutula WA, Weber DJ (2004) Disinfection and sterilization in health care facilities: what clinicians need to know. Clin Infect Dis 39:702–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Spaulding EH (1968) Chemical disinfection of medical and surgical materials chapter 32). In: Lawrence CA, Block SS (eds) Disinfection, sterilization and preservation. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, PA, pp 517–531

    Google Scholar 

  8. Carey RF, Herman WA, Retta SM, Rinaldi JE, Herman BA, Athey TW (1992) Effectiveness of latex condoms as a barrier to human immunodeficiency virus sized particles under conditions of simulated use. Sex Transm Dis 19(4):239–244

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Southend University Hospital, Essex, UK

    Junaid Masood, Stelios Voulgaris, Olisa Awogu, Choudhary Younis, Andrew J. Ball & Tom W. Carr

  2. 47 Priory Mews, 44 Station Avenue, Prittlewell Southend, Essex, SS2 5EP, UK

    Junaid Masood

Authors
  1. Junaid Masood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stelios Voulgaris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olisa Awogu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Choudhary Younis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew J. Ball
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tom W. Carr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junaid Masood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Masood, J., Voulgaris, S., Awogu, O. et al. Condom perforation during transrectal ultrasound guided (TRUS) prostate biopsies: a potential infection risk. Int Urol Nephrol 39, 1121–1124 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-007-9213-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-007-9213-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation