Is the periprostatic anesthetic blockade advantageous in ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2004 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | International Braz J Urol (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382004000200005 |
Resumo: | OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefit of the periprostatic administration of lidocaine previously to ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the period from April to October 2002, forty patients underwent ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy due to increased PSA or abnormal digital rectal examination. A randomized double-blind study was performed, where the patients received an injection of lidocaine 2% or saline solution, in a total of 10 ml periprostatic. Immediately following the biopsy, the pain associated to the procedure was assessed, using a visual analogical scale from 0 to 10. The mean number of fragments collected per patient in the biopsies was 11.3. The statistical analysis used for assessment of pain was the Student's t, with p < 0.05 being significant. RESULTS: The groups were homogeneous concerning the anthropometrical data. In relation to pain, those patients in the groups that underwent biopsy with the use of lidocaine presented a maximum score of 6, while in the group that underwent biopsy with the use of saline solution, 4 patients presented score 7 ou 8. The mean score and standard deviation with lidocaine were 2.55 ± 2.34 (CI 95% = 1.53 to 3.57) and with saline solution were 3.75 ± 2.52 (CI 95% = 2.66 ± 4.84) with no statistical significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: The lidocaine injection did not show statistical difference when compared with saline solution in the periprostatic blockade during echo-guided prostate biopsy. |
id |
SBU-1_96279c7307dc73bda6764168d2858af7 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1677-55382004000200005 |
network_acronym_str |
SBU-1 |
network_name_str |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Is the periprostatic anesthetic blockade advantageous in ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy?prostatic neoplasmsdiagnosisultrasonographybiopsyneedlelocal anesthesiaOBJECTIVE: To assess the benefit of the periprostatic administration of lidocaine previously to ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the period from April to October 2002, forty patients underwent ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy due to increased PSA or abnormal digital rectal examination. A randomized double-blind study was performed, where the patients received an injection of lidocaine 2% or saline solution, in a total of 10 ml periprostatic. Immediately following the biopsy, the pain associated to the procedure was assessed, using a visual analogical scale from 0 to 10. The mean number of fragments collected per patient in the biopsies was 11.3. The statistical analysis used for assessment of pain was the Student's t, with p < 0.05 being significant. RESULTS: The groups were homogeneous concerning the anthropometrical data. In relation to pain, those patients in the groups that underwent biopsy with the use of lidocaine presented a maximum score of 6, while in the group that underwent biopsy with the use of saline solution, 4 patients presented score 7 ou 8. The mean score and standard deviation with lidocaine were 2.55 ± 2.34 (CI 95% = 1.53 to 3.57) and with saline solution were 3.75 ± 2.52 (CI 95% = 2.66 ± 4.84) with no statistical significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: The lidocaine injection did not show statistical difference when compared with saline solution in the periprostatic blockade during echo-guided prostate biopsy.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2004-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382004000200005International braz j urol v.30 n.2 2004reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-55382004000200005info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessVanni,André P.Schaal,Carlos H.Costa,Renato P.Sala,Fernando C.eng2004-06-02T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382004000200005Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2004-06-02T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Is the periprostatic anesthetic blockade advantageous in ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy? |
title |
Is the periprostatic anesthetic blockade advantageous in ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy? |
spellingShingle |
Is the periprostatic anesthetic blockade advantageous in ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy? Vanni,André P. prostatic neoplasms diagnosis ultrasonography biopsy needle local anesthesia |
title_short |
Is the periprostatic anesthetic blockade advantageous in ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy? |
title_full |
Is the periprostatic anesthetic blockade advantageous in ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy? |
title_fullStr |
Is the periprostatic anesthetic blockade advantageous in ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Is the periprostatic anesthetic blockade advantageous in ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy? |
title_sort |
Is the periprostatic anesthetic blockade advantageous in ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy? |
author |
Vanni,André P. |
author_facet |
Vanni,André P. Schaal,Carlos H. Costa,Renato P. Sala,Fernando C. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Schaal,Carlos H. Costa,Renato P. Sala,Fernando C. |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Vanni,André P. Schaal,Carlos H. Costa,Renato P. Sala,Fernando C. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
prostatic neoplasms diagnosis ultrasonography biopsy needle local anesthesia |
topic |
prostatic neoplasms diagnosis ultrasonography biopsy needle local anesthesia |
description |
OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefit of the periprostatic administration of lidocaine previously to ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the period from April to October 2002, forty patients underwent ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy due to increased PSA or abnormal digital rectal examination. A randomized double-blind study was performed, where the patients received an injection of lidocaine 2% or saline solution, in a total of 10 ml periprostatic. Immediately following the biopsy, the pain associated to the procedure was assessed, using a visual analogical scale from 0 to 10. The mean number of fragments collected per patient in the biopsies was 11.3. The statistical analysis used for assessment of pain was the Student's t, with p < 0.05 being significant. RESULTS: The groups were homogeneous concerning the anthropometrical data. In relation to pain, those patients in the groups that underwent biopsy with the use of lidocaine presented a maximum score of 6, while in the group that underwent biopsy with the use of saline solution, 4 patients presented score 7 ou 8. The mean score and standard deviation with lidocaine were 2.55 ± 2.34 (CI 95% = 1.53 to 3.57) and with saline solution were 3.75 ± 2.52 (CI 95% = 2.66 ± 4.84) with no statistical significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: The lidocaine injection did not show statistical difference when compared with saline solution in the periprostatic blockade during echo-guided prostate biopsy. |
publishDate |
2004 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2004-04-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382004000200005 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382004000200005 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/S1677-55382004000200005 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
International braz j urol v.30 n.2 2004 reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online) instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) instacron:SBU |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) |
instacron_str |
SBU |
institution |
SBU |
reponame_str |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
collection |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br |
_version_ |
1750318068962164736 |