Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2006 |
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=S1677-55382006000200007 |
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 |