Prostate cancer detection rates in different biopsy schemes. Which cores for which patients?

PURPOSE: To determine whether the addition of four paramedian peripheral and four lateral peripheral cores improves the cancer detection rate (CDR) of the extended 10-core biopsy scheme and which patients benefit most from such additional samples. METHODS: One thousand and ninety-one consecutive patients scheduled for first ultrasound-guided transrectal prostate biopsy prospectively underwent a 18-core biopsy scheme, including the traditional sextant (6-core), 4 lateral peripheral (10-core), 4 paramedian peripheral (14-core) and additional 4 lateral peripheral cores (18-core). RESULTS: The CDR of the 6-, 10-, 14- and 18-core schemes was 33.1, 39.2, 41.6 and 41.8 %, respectively; the difference between the 10- and 6-core scheme reached significance (p < 0.005), whereas that between the 18- or 14- and the 10-core scheme did not. The percentage of tumors diagnosed on the sole basis of the 14-core scheme was significantly greater in patients with low PSA (≤ 7.2 vs. >7.2 ng/ml: 12.1 vs. 1.8 %; p < 0.0001), large prostate volume (≥ 50 vs. <50 cc: 3.4 vs. 9.1 %; p = 0.011) and particularly low PSA density (<0.15 vs. ≥ 0.15: 15.9 vs. 1 %; p < 0.0001). The 18-core scheme did not provide diagnostic advantages in any patients' population. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 4 lateral peripheral samples did not increase the CDR of the 10-core biopsy scheme. The addition of four paramedian peripheral samples was beneficial only in patients with PSA density <0.15, in whom the 10-core scheme would have miss almost 16 % of tumors. Since more than half of our patients had low (<0.15) PSA density, these findings seem to be of great clinical relevance.

Noninfiltrative anesthesia for transrectal prostate biopsy: a randomized prospective study comparing lidocaine-prilocaine cream and lidocaine-ketorolac gel.

OBJECTIVES: Periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) is the standard anesthesia for ultrasound (US) guided transrectal prostate biopsy (TPB), but periprostatic infiltration itself constitutes a major, though often neglected, source of discomfort even in patients receiving perianal-intrarectal lidocaine-prilocaine (PILP) cream before PPNB. Noninfiltrative anesthesia therefore represents an attractive alternative to periprostatic infiltration. With this in mind, we aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of perianal-intrarectal (PI) lidocaine gel, lidocaine-ketorolac gel, and lidocaine-prilocaine cream in relieving pain during TPB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred consecutive patients scheduled for US-guided TPB were randomized 1:1:1 to receive PI administration of 5 g 2.5% lidocaine gel 10 minutes before TPB (Group 1), or a mixture of 5 g 2.5% lidocaine gel and 0.3% ketorolac tromethamine solution 1 hour before TPB (Group 2), or 5 g 2.5% lidocaine and 2.5% prilocaine cream 20 minutes before TPB (Group 3). The 0-to-10 points visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for assessing pain at probe insertion and movements (VAS-1), at prostate sampling (VAS-2), and maximal procedural pain (MPP). Complications occurring up to 20 days after the procedure were also recorded. RESULTS: Four (1.3%) patients were excluded because of unbearable pain during the procedure, leaving Group 1 with 98 patients, Group 2 with 99, and Group 3 with 99; the 3 groups were comparable for patients' age, serum PSA, prostate volume, and cancer detection rate. The addition of either ketorolac or prilocaine to lidocaine significantly (P < 0.0001) reduced probe-related, sampling-related, and maximal procedural pain. Compared with lidocaine-prilocaine, lidocaine-ketorolac was less effective in relieving probe-related pain (mean VAS-1: 1.47 ± 1.30 vs. 0.39 ± 0.65; P < 0.0001) but more effective in relieving sampling-related pain (mean VAS-2: 0.76 ± 0.94 vs. 1.54 ± 1.02; P < 0.0001); there was no difference in MPP (mean 1.82 ± 1.21 vs. 1.67 ± 0.95), probably due to such different efficacy on the two pain sources. Complications were similar in the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine-prilocaine cream was most effective on probe-related pain, whereas lidocaine-ketorolac gel was most effective on sampling-related pain. These noninfiltrative anesthetics were safe, easy to administer, and well accepted by patients; the possibility to combine them to further improve pain control during TPB deserves further well-designed studies.

TachoSil(®) sealed tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy to reduce urine leakage and bleeding: outcome of a randomized controlled study.

PURPOSE: We determined the efficacy and safety of TachoSil(®) in sealing the tract after percutaneous nephrolithotomy compared to nephrostomy tube placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 consecutive patients scheduled for percutaneous nephrolithotomy were randomized 1:1 to receive a 16Fr nephrostomy tube (group 1) or TachoSil in the tract (group 2). All patients received a mono-J ureteral catheter. The primary study end points were bleeding and urinary leakage rates. The secondary end points were pain as assessed by the 0 to 10-point visual analog scale, analgesic requirement and hospital stay. RESULTS: The groups were comparable for preoperative and operative variables. In group 1, 3 patients were excluded intraoperatively because of relevant bleeding, and in group 2, 1 patient was excluded intraoperatively because of hydrothorax. Tract complications were significantly more frequent in group 1 than in group 2 (25.5% vs 2%, p <0.001). However, the difference in urinary leakage reached statistical significance (19.1% vs 2%, p = 0.007), whereas that in perirenal hematoma formation did not (6.4% vs 0%, p = 0.113). There was no difference between the groups in mean ± SD number of analgesic doses (1.17 ± 1.56 vs 1.20 ± 1.69, p = 0.791) and visual analogue scale scores (4.77 ± 2.28 vs 4.24 ± 2.32, p = 0.270). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in group 2 than in group 1 (5.15 ± 1.74 vs 2.75 ± 1.78 days, p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although failing to reduce pain and analgesic requirement, TachoSil provided better tract control and a shorter hospital stay than nephrostomy tube placement, thus allowing the extension of indications for tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy to most procedures.

Combined perianal-intrarectal (PI) lidocaine-prilocaine (LP) cream and lidocaine-ketorolac gel provide better pain relief than combined PI LP cream and periprostatic nerve block during transrectal prostate biopsy.

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Study Type - Harm Reduction RCT Level of Evidence 1b The combination of perianal-intrarectal lidocaine-prilocaine cream and periprostatic nerve block effectively counteracts probe and sampling related pain during transrectal prostate biopsy, but not pain due to periprostatic infiltration. The novel combination of lidocaine-prilocaine cream and lidocaine-ketorolac gel, both administered perianal-intrarectally, provides the same probe and sampling-related pain relief than combined perianal-intrarectal lidocaine-prilocaine cream and periprostatic nerve block and prevents the non-negligible pain due to periprostatic infiltration, thus leading to better overall patients' compliance to the procedure. OBJECTIVE: • To compare the efficacy and safety of combined perianal-intrarectal (PI) lidocaine-prilocaine (LP) cream and lidocaine-ketorolac (LK) gel with combined PI LP cream and periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) in relieving pain during transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy (TPB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: • In all, 200 patients were randomized to receive combined PI LP cream and LK gel (group 1) or combined PI LP cream and PPNB (group 2) before TPB. • The 0-10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for assessing pain at probe insertion and movements (VAS-1), periprostatic infiltration (VAS-2) when applied, and prostate sampling (VAS-3), as well as maximal procedural pain (MPP). • Complications occurring ≤ 20 days after the TPB were recorded. RESULTS: • The groups were comparable for patients' age, serum PSA level, prostate volume, and cancer detection rate. • All patients tolerated the procedure well. The two anaesthetic regimens provided almost equal mean VAS-1 (0.33 vs 0.37; P= 0.701) and VAS-3 (0.52 vs 0.51; P= 0.954) scores, but patients in group 2 reported significantly greater MPP scores (0.68 vs 1.53; P < 0.001) as periprostatic infiltration was the most painful part of the procedure (mean VAS-2: 1.33). • Complications rate was similar in the two groups (1% vs 2%; P= 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: • The novel combination of PI LP cream and LK gel provided the same probe- and sampling- related pain relief as combined PI LP and PPNB; moreover, by preventing the non-negligible periprostatic infiltration pain, it provided significantly better overall patients' compliance to the procedure. • Being safe and easy to administer, this novel non-infiltrative regimen has the potential to replace infiltrative anaesthesia in relieving pain during TPB.

Urethral corpus spongiosum amyloidosis presenting with urethrorrhagia during erection.

INTRODUCTION: Urethral amyloidosis is a rare, probably inflammatory condition usually presenting with hematuria and obstructive urinary symptoms, thus mimicking urethral malignancy. After histological confirmation of the diagnosis, treatment can be expectant or symptomatic. AIM. To report an unusual cause of urethrorrhagia occurring only during erection in an otherwise healthy man. METHODS. A 30-year-old man presented with a 5-month history of urethrorrhagia occurring only during erection, and with a painless palpable nodule in his penile urethra clearly visible on urethral US and magnetic resonance imaging, but not on urethroscopy. RESULTS. The patient underwent wide surgical excision of the urethral nodule and grafting of the urethral defect with a pedicled preputial flap. Histological examination revealed isolated amyloid of urethral corpus spongiosum. CONCLUSIONS. Isolated urethrorrhagia during erection and without urinary symptoms can be the presenting sign of urethral amyloidosis involving corpus spongiosum rather than the urethral lumen; in such cases, surgical exploration, wide urethral excision and grafting are mandatory.

Percutaneous nephrostomy in supine position.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous nephrostomy has traditionally been performed with the patient in the prone position, probably to reduce the risk of injury to adjacent visceral organs, particularly the colon. The prone position, however, is associated with disadvantages such as patient discomfort and circulatory and ventilatory difficulties, particularly in obese patients. We describe a technique of percutaneous nephrostomy with the patient in the supine anterolateral position using local anesthesia, ultrasound-guided puncture, and fluoroscopy-controlled placement. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The supine anterolateral position was obtained by placing towels under the ipsilateral shoulder and gluteus to elevate the flank approximately 30 degrees, thus providing enough space for ultrasound scanning and ultrasound-guided puncture of the collecting system. The ipsilateral arm was placed over the thorax, and the contralateral arm was used for intravenous perfusion. The ipsilateral leg was flexed slightly, and the contralateral leg was flexed and abducted so that its lateral aspect lay on the table, providing adequate space in case of concomitant transurethral manipulation. In this supine position, the colon falls anteromedially and thus well apart from the puncture paths. In contrast, in the prone position, it is pushed against the lateral surface of the kidney in the way of possible puncture paths. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience with 12 consecutive patients showed this technique to be easy, safe, and effective and to prevent the discomfort and ventilation difficulties of the prone position, particularly in obese patients or those in poor general condition or with respiratory problems.