Intrarectal ice application prior to transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective randomised trial accessing pain and collateral effects.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the efficacy of intrarectal ice application as an anesthetic method prior to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 consecutive men were included into the study prospectively. Patients were equally randomized as group 1 and 2 with 60 patients each. Ice was applied as an anesthetic method 5 minutes before procedure to the patients in group 1. Patients in group 2 were applied 10 mL of 2% lidocaine gel 10 minutes before procedure. Twelve core biopsy procedure was performed for all patients. The pain level was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Median pain score was 3.5 (1-8) in group 1 and 5 (1-8) in group 2. There is significantly difference between groups regarding the mean sense of pain level during the procedure. (p=0.007) There was also no difference in complications between two groups about presence and duration of macroscopic hematuria and rectal bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Intrarectal ice application prior to TRUS prostate biopsy has an effect on reducing pain. Development of new techniques about cold effect or ice can make this method more useful and decrease complication rates.

Tolerancia y complicaciones de las biopsias prostaticas ecodirigidas mediante el uso de un gel intrarectal con lidocaina / Tolerability and complications of ultrasound guided prostate biopsies with intrarectal lidocaine gel

Objetivo: El objetivo de nuestro estudio, fue valorar la tolerancia por parte del paciente a una biopsia de próstata transrectal ecodirigida usando como método anestésico un gel con 2 gramos de lidocaina intrarectal, así como valorar las complicaciones de esta prueba. Método: Durante 4 meses consecutivos se realizaron 148 biopsias de próstata ecodirigidas usando 2 gramos de lidocaina intrarectal. Se usó el mismo transductor ecográfico transrectal en todos los pacientes, usándose también el mismo mecanismo de aguja para la obtención de los cilindros. Las biopsias fueron realizadas por 7 urólogos diferentes obteniéndose en cada biopsia entre 6 y 12 cilindros. A todos los pacientes se les entregó tras la prueba un cuestionario para valorar la tolerancia a este método. Así mismo, el médico que realizó las biopsias rellenaba un cuestionario a cerca del paciente en el que valoraba la tolerancia del paciente y las complicaciones tras la prueba. Resultados: Se recogieron los datos de tolerancia en 147 casos, existiendo dolor intenso o insoportable globalmente en 25 casos (16,9 %) y nada molesto en 45 pacientes (30,4 %). Se evidenció una asociación significativa entre el resultado del cuestionario del paciente y la percepción del médico que realizó la prueba. Sólo en 10 casos el tacto rectal fue doloroso, en 13 el paso del transductor y en 15 los movimientos del mismo en el recto. Prácticamente todos los cilindros que resultaron dolorosos o insoportables en la toma de muestras fueron los recogidos de la zona del ápex. Se encontró una asociación significativa (p=0,005) entre el número de cilindros y el dolor durante la obtención de los mismos, siendo mayor de lo esperado el dolor cuando se realizaron biopsias por encima de las sextantes. Sólo 14 pacientes no realizarían nuevamente la misma prueba o requerirían otro tipo de anestesia y el 89,9 % (133), volverían a realizarla en las mismas condiciones. Conclusiones: En nuestra experiencia la biopsia prostática ecodirigida es generalmente bien tolerada empleando únicamente un gel anestésico intrarectal. No obstante, el número de punciones durante la biopsia ha sido el factor asociado al dolor de la prueba y al incrementarse aquel debería plantearse el empleo de algún tipo adicional de anestesia (AU)

Objectives: The objective of our study was to evaluate patient tolerance to transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy using anesthesia with 2 grams of intrarectal lidocaine gel, and to evaluate the complications of the test. Methods: 148 prostate biopsies with intrarectal lidocaine were performed over a four month period. The same intrarectal ultrasound transducer and needle mechanism were employed for all patients. Biopsies were performed by 7 different urologists with 6 to 12 cores per biopsy. All patients received after the biopsy a questionnaire to evaluate their tolerance to the intervention. In the same way, the urologist performing the biopsy filled a questionnaire about patient tolerance and complications of the test. Results: Patient tolerance data were recorded in 147 biopsies. Twenty-five cases (16.9%) referred severe or unbearable pain, 45 patients (13.4%) referred no pain at all. A significant association between patients' and doctors' results was obtained. Digital rectal examination was painful in 10 cases only; transducer insertion was painful in 13, and 15 referred pain with the transducer movements inside the rectum. Almost all painful or unbearable core biopsies were taken in the apex. There was a significant association (p = 0.005) between the number of cores per biopsy and pain, being the pain more than expected when the number of cores was greater than six. Only 14 patients would not ever repeat the same biopsy or would request a different type of anesthesia and 133 (59.9%) of them would repeat it in the same way. Conclusions: In our experience, transrectal ultrasound guided prostatic biopsy is generally well tolerated with intrarectal gel as the only anesthesia. Nevertheless, the number of cores taken per biopsy has been the factor associated with pain, and if the number of biopsy cores increases additional anesthesia should be considered (AU)

[Rectal administration of anesthetic agents]. / La somministrazione di farmaci anestetici per via rettale.

OBJECTIVES: To collect data in the current literature dealing with the diffusion, the reliability and the effectiveness of the rectal administration of anaesthetic drugs. To evaluate differences with parenteral administration. DATA SOURCES: Pharmacokinetics and clinical studies published in recent years in indexed journals. STUDY SELECTION: Based on the study methodology, drugs employed and pharmacokinetic parameters evaluated. DATA EXTRACTION: Factors involved in absorption of drugs from the rectal mucosa, clinical effect and pharmacokinetic data of the following drugs: diazepam, flunitrazepam, midazolam, ketamin and methohexital, then a brief evaluation of other drugs: thiopental, etomidate, morphine and chloral hydrate. DATA SYNTHESIS: The most widely used drugs are benzodiazepines: they are safe, easy to manage and highly effective; among them midazolam has the best kinetic and dynamic pattern. Ketamin is useful during painful diagnostic procedures; with the use of barbiturates there is a greater risk of respiratory depression and more caution must be employed. CONCLUSIONS: Wide intervariability of rate of absorption, achievement of plasma levels and clinical effect is a relevant drawback of this technique, such to make it not preferable to the parenteral route, when both are feasible. It deserves, anyway, more consideration, and maintains its validity for the preparation of the paediatric patient to general anaesthesia.

Anaesthesia without tears.

Rectal induction of anaesthesia is a useful method but is not widely used in South Africa. We studied the onset of action and side-effects of 1% methohexitone administered rectally in a dose of 20 mg/kg to 110 preschool children. Ninety-one per cent were adequately sedated for inhalation induction by mask within 10 minutes, and all by 15 minutes, of drug administration. There was no evidence of significant cardiovascular or respiratory depression and only minor complications such as faecal soiling (11.8%) and hiccough (3.6%) were noted. The technique has been favourably received by parents, surgeons and nursing staff and has now become routine practice.

Anorectal infiltration anesthesia in the prone position.

A safe technique of infiltration anesthesia for anorectal procedures is described. It eliminates patient discomfort and allows the surgeon to work with the patient in the prone position.

Comparison of sedation, amnesia, and patient comfort produced by intravenous and rectal diazepam.

In a cross-over study, intravenous diazepam was compared with rectal diazepam for sedation in outpatient oral surgery. Fifty-four operations were performed on 27 patients. Recovery from sedation, experience during the postoperative course, amnesia, estimation of the sedative effect, and patient preference of method of sedation were studied. The recovery times of the sedation methods did not differ. Sedative effects after the first operation were estimated as good by 87% of patients given intravenous sedation and by 75% of those given rectal sedation. However, there was a significant relationship between the subjective experience of stronger sedative effect and preference of sedation method that favored the intravenous technique. The degree of amnesia was significantly higher during intravenous sedation, but a high degree of amnesia was not related to patients' preference for a sedation method. Neither sedation method produced any local side effects.

[Ketamine via rectal route for the induction of pediatric anesthesia]. / Kétamine par voie rectale pour l'induction de l'anesthésie pédiatrique.

Three groups of children: 6 months to 3 years old with congenital heart disease, and 4 to 12 years old, and mentally retarded 14 to 18 years old affected by pneumopathia received 10 mg kg-1 ketamine by rectal administration. Induction was smooth and well tolerated. From onset of effects with nystagmus to full action 9 to 25 minutes elapsed.

[Rectal anaesthesia with diazepam added to ketamine for preschool child (author's transl)]. / L'association kétamine-diazépam par voie rectale en anesthésie pédiatrique.

The authors relate their experience of 61 rectal anesthesias with ketamine (10 mg/kg) and diazepam (0.25-0.5 mg/kg). Rectal anesthesia is well accepted by children who are afraid of percutaneous injection. When ketamine is used alone, they obtained only 76 p. cent good result. When diazepam is associated, good results arise to 95 p. cent. Diazepam added to ketamine allows surface surgery during 10 to 15 minutes.

[Anesthesiological indications in proctological surgery]. / Indicazioni anestesiologiche nella chirurgia proctologica.

A brief anatomical introduction is followed by the expression of personal views on the anaesthesiological techniques to be employed in proctological surgery in the light of a series of 258 cases.