eISSN: 3023-6940
  • Home
  • Relationship between the positive core percentage and Gleason score with perineural invasion in patient with prostate cancer on prostate biopsy

Original Research

Relationship between the positive core percentage and Gleason score with perineural invasion in patient with prostate cancer on prostate biopsy


1İzmir Atatürk Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi,1. Üroloji Kliniği

2 Manisa Merkez Efendi Devlet Hastanesi


DOI :
New J Urol. 2011; 6 (3): 16-20

Abstract

Objective: We compared the analgesic ef-ficacy of the caudal block anesthesia and intra-rectal gel anesthesia for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in patients with anorectal disorders.

Materials and Methods: A total of 100 pa-tients which had anorectal disorders undergo-ing biopsy were entered into this study. 15 ml of lidocaine (1% lidocaine) was into the cau-dal space in caudal group (first 50 patients) and 15 cc 2% lidocaine gel were applied intra-rectally in intrarectal gel group (last 50 pati-ents) 10 minutes before the prostate biopsy. A self-administration visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess the pain score during anest-hesia, during probe insertion and during pros-tate biopsy.

Results: The mean VAS score during the probe insertion and during the prostate biop-sies is lower in group 1 than group 2, (p<0.05). The mean VAS score during the anesthesia, pro-be insertion and prostate biopsy in group 1 and in group 2 are (2.72±1.29 (1-5) vs 1.46±0.67 (1-3), p<0.05), (2.00±1.03 (0-4) vs 2.50±0.64 (2-4), p<0.05), and (2.02±0.93 (1-4) vs 3.60±0.83 (3-6), p<0.05), respectively. 

Conclusions: Caudal block anesthesia is superior to reduce pain intrarectal gel applica-tion in probe insertion and prostate biopsy in patients with anorectal disorders undergoing TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.

Key Words: Caudal block, intrarectal gel, prostate biopsy, visual analog scale.


Abstract

Objective: We compared the analgesic ef-ficacy of the caudal block anesthesia and intra-rectal gel anesthesia for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in patients with anorectal disorders.

Materials and Methods: A total of 100 pa-tients which had anorectal disorders undergo-ing biopsy were entered into this study. 15 ml of lidocaine (1% lidocaine) was into the cau-dal space in caudal group (first 50 patients) and 15 cc 2% lidocaine gel were applied intra-rectally in intrarectal gel group (last 50 pati-ents) 10 minutes before the prostate biopsy. A self-administration visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess the pain score during anest-hesia, during probe insertion and during pros-tate biopsy.

Results: The mean VAS score during the probe insertion and during the prostate biop-sies is lower in group 1 than group 2, (p<0.05). The mean VAS score during the anesthesia, pro-be insertion and prostate biopsy in group 1 and in group 2 are (2.72±1.29 (1-5) vs 1.46±0.67 (1-3), p<0.05), (2.00±1.03 (0-4) vs 2.50±0.64 (2-4), p<0.05), and (2.02±0.93 (1-4) vs 3.60±0.83 (3-6), p<0.05), respectively. 

Conclusions: Caudal block anesthesia is superior to reduce pain intrarectal gel applica-tion in probe insertion and prostate biopsy in patients with anorectal disorders undergoing TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.

Key Words: Caudal block, intrarectal gel, prostate biopsy, visual analog scale.