Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Nonantibiotic Strategies for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 205; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1097/ju.0000000000001399

1527-3792

Benjamin Pradère, Rajan Veeratterapillay, Konstantinos Dimitropoulos, Yuhong Yuan, Muhammad Imran Omar, Steven MacLennan, Tommaso Cai, F. Bruyère, Riccardo Bartoletti, Béla Köves, Florian Wagenlehner, Gernot Bonkat, Adrian Pilatz,

Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research

You have accessJournal of UrologyReview Articles1 Mar 2021Nonantibiotic Strategies for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Benjamin Pradere, Rajan Veeratterapillay, Konstantinos Dimitropoulos, Yuhong Yuan, Muhammad Imran Omar, Steven MacLennan, Tommaso Cai, Franck Bruyère, Riccardo Bartoletti, Bela Köves, Florian Wagenlehner, Gernot Bonkat, and Adrian Pilatz Benjamin PradereBenjamin Pradere Urologie, CHRU Bretonneau, Tours, France Université Francois Rabelais, PRES Centre Val de Loire, Tours, France , Rajan VeeratterapillayRajan Veeratterapillay Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom , Konstantinos DimitropoulosKonstantinos Dimitropoulos Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom , Yuhong YuanYuhong Yuan Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada , Muhammad Imran OmarMuhammad Imran Omar Guidelines Office, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands , Steven MacLennanSteven MacLennan Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom , Tommaso CaiTommaso Cai Department of Urology, Santa Chiara, Reg. Hospital, Trento, Italy , Franck BruyèreFranck Bruyère Urologie, CHRU Bretonneau, Tours, France Université Francois Rabelais, PRES Centre Val de Loire, Tours, France , Riccardo BartolettiRiccardo Bartoletti Department of Translational Research and New Technologies, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy , Bela KövesBela Köves Department of Urology, South-Pest Teaching Hospital, Budapest, Hungary , Florian WagenlehnerFlorian Wagenlehner Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany , Gernot BonkatGernot Bonkat Alta Uro AG, Merian Iselin Klinik, Center of Biomechanics & Calorimetry, University Basel, Basel, Switzerland , and Adrian PilatzAdrian Pilatz †Correspondence: Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Rudolf-Buchheim-Str. 7, 35392Giessen, Germany telephone: +49-641-985-56362; FAX: +49-641-985-44577; E-mail Address: [email protected] Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001399AboutAbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Abstract Purpose: We identify which nonantibiotic strategies could reduce the risk of infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Materials and Methods: We performed a literature search on MEDLINE®, Embase® and the Cochrane Database for randomized controlled trials (inception to May 2020) assessing nonantibiotic interventions in prostate biopsy. Primary outcome was pooled infectious complications (fever, sepsis and symptomatic urinary tract infection) and secondary outcome was hospitalization. Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE approach were used to assess the bias and the certainty of evidence. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026354). Results: A total of 90 randomized controlled trials (16,941 participants) were included in the analysis, with 83 trials being categorized into one of 10 different interventions. Transperineal biopsy was associated with significantly reduced infectious complications as compared to transrectal biopsy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33–0.92, p=0.02, I2=0%, 1,330 participants, 7 studies). Rectal preparation with povidone-iodine was also shown to reduce infectious complications (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38–0.65, p /=4 ng/mL: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol 2019; 8: 741. Google Scholar 26. : Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2020; 77: 78. Google Scholar 27. : The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl 2012; 14: 310. Google Scholar 28. : Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2019; 17: 31. Google Scholar 29. : Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology 2008; 71: 191. Google Scholar 30. : A prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transperineal and transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2008; 11: 134. Google Scholar 31. : The global burden of major infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Epidemiol Infect 2016; 144: 1784. Google Scholar 32. : Antibiotic prophylaxis in urological surgery, a European viewpoint. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2011; 38: 58. Google Scholar 33. : Infective complications after prostate biopsy: outcome of the Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology (GPIU) 2010 and 2011, A prospective multinational multicentre prostate biopsy study. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 521. Google Scholar 34. : Clinical importance of antibiotic regimen in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a single center analysis of nine thousand four hundred eighty-seven cases. Surg Infections 2018; 19: 704. Google Scholar 35. : Is it possible to predict sepsis, the most serious complication in prostate biopsy?Urol Int 2010; 84: 395. Google Scholar 36. : What is the most effective local anesthesia for transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy of the prostate? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 47 randomized clinical trials. Sci Rep 2019; 9: 4901. Google Scholar 37. : Effectiveness of periprostatic block to prevent pain in transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and a network meta-analysis. Cent Eur J Urol 2019; 72: 121. Google Scholar 38. : A meta-analysis of local anesthesia for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2007; 10: 127. Google Scholar 39. : The efficiency and safety of intrarectal topical anesthesia for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int 2017; 99: 373. Google Scholar 40. : Reducing infectious complications after transrectal prostate needle biopsy using a disposable needle guide: is it possible?Int Braz J Urol 2011; 37: 79. Google Scholar 41. : Does disposable needle guide minimize infectious complications after transrectal prostate needle biopsy?Urology 2008; 71: 1024. Google Scholar 42. : Transperineal prostate core needle biopsy: a comparison of coaxial versus noncoaxial method in a randomised trial. CardioVascular Interv Radiol 2016; 39: 1736. Google Scholar 43. : Pain assessment after original transperineal prostate biopsy using a coaxial needle. Urology 2003; 62: 689. Google Scholar 44. : Sixteen gauge needles improve specimen quality but not cancer detection rate in transrectal ultrasound-guided 10-core prostate biopsies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2008; 11: 270. Google Scholar 45. : Does washing the biopsy needle with povidone-iodine have an effect on infection rates after transrectal prostate needle biopsy?Urol Int 2010; 85: 147. Google Scholar 46. : Povidone iodine rectal preparation at time of prostate needle biopsy is a simple and reproducible means to reduce risk of procedural infection. J Vis Exp 2015; 52670. Google Scholar © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByUrkmez A, Demirel C, Altok M, Bathala T, Shapiro D and Davis J (2021) Freehand versus Grid-Based Transperineal Prostate Biopsy: A Comparison of Anatomical Region Yield and ComplicationsJournal of Urology, VOL. 206, NO. 4, (894-902), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2021. Volume 205Issue 3March 2021Page: 653-663Supplementary Materials Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsprostatebiopsyinfectionsantibiotic prophylaxisAcknowledgmentsEmma Smith from the EAU Guidelines Office assisted with the systematic review, and Robert Pickard (deceased), Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, initiated this review.MetricsAuthor Information Benjamin Pradere Urologie, CHRU Bretonneau, Tours, France Université Francois Rabelais, PRES Centre Val de Loire, Tours, France Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Rajan Veeratterapillay Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Konstantinos Dimitropoulos Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom More articles by this author Yuhong Yuan Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada More articles by this author Muhammad Imran Omar Guidelines Office, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands More articles by this author Steven MacLennan Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom More articles by this author Tommaso Cai Department of Urology, Santa Chiara, Reg. Hospital, Trento, Italy More articles by this author Franck Bruyère Urologie, CHRU Bretonneau, Tours, France Université Francois Rabelais, PRES Centre Val de Loire, Tours, France More articles by this author Riccardo Bartoletti Department of Translational Research and New Technologies, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy More articles by this author Bela Köves Department of Urology, South-Pest Teaching Hospital, Budapest, Hungary More articles by this author Florian Wagenlehner Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany More articles by this author Gernot Bonkat Alta Uro AG, Merian Iselin Klinik, Center of Biomechanics & Calorimetry, University Basel, Basel, Switzerland More articles by this author Adrian Pilatz Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany †Correspondence: Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Rudolf-Buchheim-Str. 7, 35392Giessen, Germany telephone: +49-641-985-56362; FAX: +49-641-985-44577; E-mail Address: [email protected] More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement Loading ...