ROLE OF POVIDONE-IODINE-SOAKED GAUZE IN PREVENTING INFECTIOUS COMPLICATIONS FOLLOWING TRANS RECTAL DIGITAL GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To identify the role of povidone iodine-soaked gauze following transrectal digital guided prostate biopsy in the prevention of infectious complications.
Methodology: This prospective comparative study was conducted in the urology department of Lady Reading Hospital including 201 patients. Patients who had indications for prostate biopsy, including an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or abnormal prostatic nodule on digital rectal findings were included. Patients were distributed into two groups by the closed envelop method. Group, I (n=101) received a povidone-iodine-soaked gauze intrarectally along with xylocaine lubricant for 5 minutes just before biopsy, while group 2 (n=100) did not receive povidone-soaked gauze. The transrectal digital guided prostate biopsy guided method was used in this study. The rectal swab was taken before using povidone-soaked gauze and after doing biopsy in both groups The bacterial colonies were counted in swabs before using povidone-soaked gauze and after biopsy using biopsy Mueller-Hinton agar medium.
Results: The mean age of group 1 was 64 years (range, 39–80) and group 2 was 61.7 years (range, 35–82). The average PSA values were 7.3 ng/ml and 8.34 ng/ml in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The rate of infectious complications in group1 was 0.9% (n=1) whereas in group 2 was 10% (n=10). A single-use of povidone-soaked rectal gauze significantly lowered the risk of infectious complications P<0.05. There was a 99.9% decrease in the mean number of colony-forming units after rectal preparation.
Conclusion: Findings concluded that using povidone iodine-soaked gauze before doing digital guided prostate biopsy is a significant method to minimize complications.
Article Details
Work published in JPMI is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
References
Schröder FH. Review of diagnostic markers for prostate cancer. Recent Result Cancer Res. 2009; 181:173- 82. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-69297- 3_16.
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Sie¬gel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Can¬cer J Clin 2018; 68(6):394-424. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21492
Rawla P. Epidemiology of Prostate Can¬cer. World J Oncol. 2019; 10(2):63-89. doi:10.14740/wjon1191.
Hodge K, McNeal J, Stamey T. Ultra¬sound Guided Transrectal Core Biopsies of the Palpably Abnormal Prostate. J Urol. 1989; 142(1):66-70.
Abughosh Z, Margolick J, Goldenberg SL, Taylor SA, Afshar K, Bell R, et al. A prospective randomized trial of po¬vidone-iodine prophylactic cleansing of the rectum before transrectal ul¬trasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2013; 189(4):1326-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.121.
Ajzen S, Goldenberg S, Allen G, Cooper¬berg P, Chan N, Jones E. Palpable pros¬tatic nodules: comparison of US and digital guidance for fine-needle aspira¬tion biopsy. Radiol. 1989; 171(2):521- 523.
Jesus C, Corrêa L, Padovani C. Com¬plications and risk factors in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies. Sao Paulo Med J. 2006; 124(4):198- 202.
Yang Y, Liu Z, Wei Q, Cao D, Yang L, Zhu Y, et al. The Efficiency and Safe¬ty of Intrarectal Topical Anesthesia for Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Me¬ta-Analysis. Urol Int. 2017; 99(4):373- 383.
Tiong H, Liew L, Samuel M, Consigliere D, Esuvaranathan K. A meta-analy¬sis of local anesthesia for transrec¬tal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. Prostat Canc Prostatic Dis. 2007;10(2):127-136.
Park B, Kim J, Bae S, Lee Y, Kang S, Han C. The effect of ultrasound-guided com¬pression immediately after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy on post-biopsy bleeding: a randomized controlled pilot study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017; 49(8):1319-1325.
Bullet E, Guevara M, Campo R, Falcóo J, Puig J, Prera A, et al. Massive Rectal Bleeding Following Transrectal Ultra¬sound-Guided Prostate Biopsy. Endos¬copy. 2000; 32(10):792-795.
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed H, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systemat¬ic Review of Complications of Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013; 64(6):876-892.
Glaser A, Novakovic K, Helfand B. The Impact of Prostate Biopsy on Urinary Symptoms, Erectile Function, and Anx¬iety. Cur Urol Rep. 2012; 13(6):447- 454.
Klein T, Palisaar R, Holz A, Brock M, Noldus J, Hinkel A. The Impact of Pros¬tate Biopsy and Periprostatic Nerve Block on Erectile and Voiding Func¬tion: A Prospective Study. J Urol. 2010; 184(4):1447-1452.
Aktas B, Bulut S, Gokkaya C, Ozden C, Salar R, Aslan Y, et al. Association of Prostate Volume with Voiding Impair¬ment and Deterioration in Quality of Life After Prostate Biopsy. Urol. 2014; 83(3):617-621.
Fujita K, Landis P, McNeil B, Pavlovich C. Serial prostate biopsies are associ¬ated with an increased risk of erectile dysfunction in men with prostate can¬cer on active surveillance. J Urol. 2009; 182(6):2664-2669.
Lundström K, Drevin L, Carlsson S, Garmo H, Loeb S, Stattin P, et al. Na¬tionwide Population-Based Study of Infections after Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy. J Urol. 2014; 192(4):1116-1122.
Bruyère F, Malavaud S, Bertrand P, Decock A, Cariou G, Doublet J, et al. Prosbiotate: A Multicenter, Prospective Analysis of Infectious Complications After Prostate Biopsy. J Urol. 2015; 193(1):145-150.
Antsupova V, Arpi M. Antibiotic prophy¬laxis for transrectal prostate biopsy--a new strategy--authors' response. J An¬timicrob Chemother. 2014; 70(3):957- 958.
Wagenlehner F, van Oostrum E, Tenke P, Tandogdu Z, Çek M, Grabe M, et al. In¬fective Complications After Prostate Bi¬opsy: Outcome of the Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology (GPIU) 2010 and 2011, A Prospective Mul¬tinational Multicentre Prostate Biopsy Study. Eur Urol. 2013; 63(3):521-527.
Unnikrishnan R, El-Shafei A, Klein E, Jones J, Kartha G, Goldman H. For Sin¬gle Dosing, Levofloxacin Is Superior to Ciprofloxacin When Combined with an Aminoglycoside in Preventing Severe Infections After Prostate Biopsy. Urol. 2015; 85(6):1241-1246.
Anastasiadis E, van der Meulen J, Em¬berton M. Hospital admissions after transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate in men diagnosed with prostate cancer: A database analysis in England. Int J Urol. 2014; 22(2):181- 186.
Walker JT, Singla N, Roehrborn CG. Reducing infectious complications fol¬lowing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a systematic review. Rev Urol. 2016; 18: 73–89.
Jordan AL, Kathleen L, Kalyan D, Jay RD. Procedural povidone-iodine rectal preparation reduces bacteriuria and bacteremia following prostate needle biopsy. CJU. 2017;24(4):8883–9
Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaef¬fer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S, et al. Com¬plications After Systematic, Random, and Image-guided Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2017; 71(3):353–65.