Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy
Tobias-Machado, M; Verotti, Mauricio J; Aragão, Augusto J; Rodrigues, Alexandre O; Borrelli, Milton; Wroclawski, Eric R.
  • Tobias-Machado, M; ABC Medical School. Section of Urology. Santo Andre. BR
  • Verotti, Mauricio J; ABC Medical School. Section of Urology. Santo Andre. BR
  • Aragão, Augusto J; ABC Medical School. Section of Urology. Santo Andre. BR
  • Rodrigues, Alexandre O; ABC Medical School. Section of Urology. Santo Andre. BR
  • Borrelli, Milton; ABC Medical School. Section of Urology. Santo Andre. BR
  • Wroclawski, Eric R; ABC Medical School. Section of Urology. Santo Andre. BR
Int. braz. j. urol ; 32(2): 172-180, Mar.-Apr. 2006.
Article Dans Anglais | LILACS | ID: lil-429015
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

To make an objective controlled comparison of pain tolerance in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy using intrarectal topic anesthesia, injectable periprostatic anesthesia, or low-dose intravenous sedation. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

One hundred and sixty patients were randomized into 4 groups group I, intrarectal application of 2 percent lidocaine gel; group II, periprostatic anesthesia; group III, intravenous injection of midazolam and meperidine; and group IV, control, patients to whom no sedation or analgesic was given. Pain was evaluated using an analogue pain scale graded from 0 to 5. Acceptance of a repetition biopsy, the side effects of the drugs and complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS:

18/20 (90 percent) and 6/20 (30 percent) patients reported strong or unbearable pain in the group submitted to conventional biopsy and topical anesthesia (p = 0.23, chi-square = 1.41); whereas those submitted to periprostatic blockade and sedation, severe pain occurred in only 2/60 (3 percent) patients (p < 0.001, chi-square = 40.19) and 3/60 (5 percent) patients (p < 0.001, chi-square = 33.34). Acceptance of repetition of the biopsy was present in only 45 percent of the patients submitted to conventional biopsy, 60 percent of those that were given topical anesthesia (p = 0.52, chi-square = 0.4), compared to 100 percent of those submitted to periprostatic anesthesia (p < 0.01, chi-square = 15.17), and 95 percent of those who were sedated (p < 0.001, chi-square = 25.97 percent).

CONCLUSIONS:

Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy is an uncomfortable experience; however application of periprostatic blockade and intravenous analgesia are associated to higher tolerance of the exam and patient comfort. Low dose sedation by association of intravenous meperidine and midazolam is an emerging and safe outpatient option.
Sujets)
Texte intégral: Disponible Indice: LILAS (Amériques) Sujet Principal: Prostate / Mesure de la douleur / Anesthésie Type d'étude: Essai clinique contrôlé / Étude observationnelle / Facteurs de risque Limites du sujet: Adulte très âgé / Humains / Mâle langue: Anglais Texte intégral: Int. braz. j. urol Thème du journal: Urologie Année: 2006 Type: Article Pays d'affiliation: Brésil Institution/Pays d'affiliation: ABC Medical School/BR

Documents relatifs à ce sujet

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS

Texte intégral: Disponible Indice: LILAS (Amériques) Sujet Principal: Prostate / Mesure de la douleur / Anesthésie Type d'étude: Essai clinique contrôlé / Étude observationnelle / Facteurs de risque Limites du sujet: Adulte très âgé / Humains / Mâle langue: Anglais Texte intégral: Int. braz. j. urol Thème du journal: Urologie Année: 2006 Type: Article Pays d'affiliation: Brésil Institution/Pays d'affiliation: ABC Medical School/BR