Patient positioning during digital rectal examination of the prostate: preferences, tolerability, and results.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the preferred position used by Brazilian Urologists to perform DRE, the position that Brazilian patients prefer or think it is less embarrassing to have a DRE, and to evaluate the results of DRE with patients in left lateral decubitus, modified lithotomy, standing-up, or the physician will have them place their elbows on the table and squat down slightly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Brazilian Urologists were contacted by e-mail, and 200 patients answered a questionnaire while undergoing prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: The preferred position was modified lithotomy position reported by 63.4% of Urologists, and left lateral position reported by 42.7% of the patients. Total DRE time was lower in the standing-up position. Pain and urinary urgency scores were similar regardless of the position used, and bowel urgency score was higher in patients squatting down. Patients were similar in terms of age and PSA level, but there was a significant difference between the standard deviations of estimated prostate weight in left lateral position. There were no differences in prostate asymmetry, positive DRE, or incomplete palpation of the prostate rates among different examination positions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite individual subjective preferences, a faster examination time in the standing-up position, and higher bowel urgency scores in patients with their elbows placed on the table and squatting down slightly, there were similar rates of prostate asymmetry, positive DRE, and incomplete palpation of the prostate, and comparable patient tolerability among different examination techniques.

Reasons why patients reject digital rectal examination when screening for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reasons why patients reject digital rectal examination (DRE) when screening for prostate cancer. METHODS: Four hundred and fifty men were prospectively evaluated in a prostate cancer educational program consisting of lectures, PSA testing, and DRE. Patients rejecting DRE were compared with those accepting DRE in regard to epidemic, social and cultural variables. RESULTS: DRE was rejected by 8.2% of patients. Refusal rate was not different when patients were stratified by age, prostate cancer family history, school level, family income, and PSA level. Patients with a prior history of DRE had a lower rejection rate than those undergoing DRE for the first time (4.4% vs. 10.4%, p = 0.038). Patients with mild or no lower urinary tract symptoms rejected DRE more frequently than those with moderate or severe symptoms (9.6% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.018). Misconceptions about prostate cancer screening were present in 84.4% of those rejecting DRE vs. 46.9% of controls (p = 0.002); 43.7% expected severe discomfort in the group that rejected DRE vs. 28. 1% in the control group (p = 0.090); fear of finding a cancer during DRE was present in 34.4% of patients that refused DRE vs. 46.9% of controls (p = 0. 121); and 53.1% of patients rejecting DRE responded it was a source of shame vs. 15.6% of patients in the control group (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: The main reasons patients reject DRE when attending prostate cancer screening are the lack of lower urinary tract symptoms, misconceptions about prostate cancer screening and shame, especially when undergoing screening for the first time.