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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Tobias-Machado,M.
Data de Publicação: 2006
Outros Autores: Verotti,Mauricio J., Aragao,Augusto J., Rodrigues,Alexandre O., Borrelli,Milton, Wroclawski,Eric R.
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=S1677-55382006000200007
Resumo: 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.
id SBU-1_d8c109d36f4636bf200e4ac84786c46d
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382006000200007
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsyprostatebiopsyneedleultrasonographyanesthesiaanalgesiaPURPOSE: 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.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2006-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382006000200007International braz j urol v.32 n.2 2006reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-55382006000200007info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessTobias-Machado,M.Verotti,Mauricio J.Aragao,Augusto J.Rodrigues,Alexandre O.Borrelli,MiltonWroclawski,Eric R.eng2006-06-08T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382006000200007Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2006-06-08T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy
title Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy
spellingShingle Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy
Tobias-Machado,M.
prostate
biopsy
needle
ultrasonography
anesthesia
analgesia
title_short Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy
title_full Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy
title_fullStr Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy
title_full_unstemmed Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy
title_sort Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy
author Tobias-Machado,M.
author_facet Tobias-Machado,M.
Verotti,Mauricio J.
Aragao,Augusto J.
Rodrigues,Alexandre O.
Borrelli,Milton
Wroclawski,Eric R.
author_role author
author2 Verotti,Mauricio J.
Aragao,Augusto J.
Rodrigues,Alexandre O.
Borrelli,Milton
Wroclawski,Eric R.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Tobias-Machado,M.
Verotti,Mauricio J.
Aragao,Augusto J.
Rodrigues,Alexandre O.
Borrelli,Milton
Wroclawski,Eric R.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv prostate
biopsy
needle
ultrasonography
anesthesia
analgesia
topic prostate
biopsy
needle
ultrasonography
anesthesia
analgesia
description 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.
publishDate 2006
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2006-04-01
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=S1677-55382006000200007
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382006000200007
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1677-55382006000200007
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.32 n.2 2006
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_ 1750318069750693888