Pure laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Guillain-Barre syndrome is an acute neuropathy that rarely compromises bladder function. Conservative management including clean intermittent catheterization and pharmacotherapy is the primary approach for hypocompliant contracted bladder. Surgical treatment may be used in refractory cases to improve bladder compliance and capacity in order to protect the upper urinary tract. We describe a case of pure laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty in a patient affected by Guillain-Barre syndrome. PRESENTATION: A 15-year-old female, complaining of voiding dysfunction, recurrent urinary tract infection and worsening renal function for three months. A previous history of Guillain-Barre syndrome on childhood was related. A voiding cystourethrography showed a pine-cone bladder with moderate post-void residual urine. The urodynamic demonstrated a hypocompliant bladder and small bladder capacity (190 mL) with high detrusor pressure (54 cmH2O). Nonsurgical treatments were attempted, however unsuccessfully.

Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy.

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% 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%) and 6/20 (30%) 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%) patients (p < 0.001, chi-square = 40.19) and 3/60 (5%) patients (p < 0.001, chi-square = 33.34). Acceptance of repetition of the biopsy was present in only 45% of the patients submitted to conventional biopsy, 60% of those that were given topical anesthesia (p = 0.52, chi-square = 0.4), compared to 100% of those submitted to periprostatic anesthesia (p < 0.01, chi-square = 15.17), and 95% of those who were sedated (p < 0.001, chi-square = 25.97%). 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.

Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy

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.

Periprostatic local anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: is it possible to improve pain tolerance?

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate objectively pain tolerance in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS) using local periprostatic anesthesia applied intrarectally, compared to the conventional method. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients were submitted to TRUS-guided prostate biopsy due to clinical suspicious of neoplasia. Patients were randomized in 2 groups: group-I, with 20 patients submitted to local anesthesia by 4 periprostatic injection of 2.5 mL 1% lidocaine, without epinephrine, TRUS-guided; and group-II, with 20 controls, with no sedatives or analgesia. After biopsy, patients were questioned about pain intensity during the procedure, using a grading scale from 0 to 5, correlating numbers, colors, and pain intensity. Pain related to probe manipulation or biopsy punctures, acceptance of an eventual re-biopsy, side effects of the drug used, and later complications of the procedure were also evaluated. RESULTS: Both groups were consistent comparing PSA levels, and prostate volume. As for pain intensity, 18/20 patients had severe or intolerable pain on the group submitted to conventional biopsy, while for those submitted to periprostatic blockage this event occurred in 3/20 patients (Chi(2 ) =22.50; p<0.01). The most important pain component was manipulation of the transrectal probe in 28% of patients, and puncture itself in 72%. Acceptance of re-biopsy as a pain evaluation criterion occurred in only 45% of patients submitted to conventional biopsy, compared to 100% of those submitted to periprostatic anesthesia (Chi (2)=15.17; p<0.01). CONCLUSION: TRUS-guided prostate biopsy is a traumatic and painful experience, but the periprostatic blockage use is clearly associated with more tolerance and patient comfort during the exam.