Is the periprostatic anesthetic blockade advantageous in ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy?

• Autor(a) principal: Vanni,André P.
• Data de Publicação: 2004
• Outros Autores: Schaal,Carlos H., Costa,Renato P., Sala,Fernando C.
• 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
• topic: prostatic neoplasms; diagnosis; ultrasonography; biopsy; needle; local anesthesia

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.