UNASSIGNED: To discern whether reduced infection rates were attributed to antiseptic solutions or mechanical rectal irrigation.
UNASSIGNED: After receiving ethical approval, the study included patients who underwent transrectal prostate biopsy due to elevated PSA or abnormal digital rectal examination findings, and prostate cancer under active surveillance, at Tepecik Training and Research Hospital between April 2022 and June 2023. Standard antibiotic prophylaxis was administered. Patients were randomized into three equal groups according to the rectal irrigation strategy.
UNASSIGNED: Overall complications occurred in 4%. Despite distinct cleaning agents, there was no significant difference in infection rates (p = 0.780) or fever incidence (p = 0.776). Pathological analyses revealed comparable outcomes (p = 0.764).
UNASSIGNED: The study challenges the prevailing belief that antiseptic solutions are indispensable for infection prevention, as saline demonstrated similar efficacy. Limitations include data gaps from potential external hospital visits and absent rectal microorganism swab culture. While TRUS-PB remains the gold standard, this study suggests that mechanically cleansing the rectal mucosa with saline-a cost-effective, side-effect-free alternative-may be a viable infection prevention method, particularly beneficial for patients with antiseptic allergies. The findings prompt a reconsideration of the necessity of antiseptic solutions in TRUS-PB, offering an alternative approach to mitigate infectious complications.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter study aimed to analyze the risk factors for fluoroquinolone (FQ) resistance and to clarify the clinical characteristics of acute bacterial prostatitis (ABP) in Japan.
METHODS: A total of 124 patients clinically diagnosed with ABP at 13 medical institutions participating in the Japanese Research Group for Urinary Tract Infection between January and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed.
RESULTS: Of the 124 patients included in this study, 37 were outpatients, and 87 were inpatients. The main underlying medical conditions before the onset of ABP were severe dysuria, urinary retention, transurethral manipulation, indwelling urinary catheter, and transrectal prostate biopsy (TRBx). The main symptoms were fever (≥37.5 °C), prostate tenderness, dysuria, micturition pain, urinary retention, and macrohematuria. Bacteremia was observed in 14 patients. Prostatic abscess was observed in three patients. Escherichia coli was the predominant organism, accounting for 48 % (51/106). FQ-resistant E. coli was detected in 33 % (17/51), and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing E. coli in 12 % (6/51). TRBx (odds ratio [OR] = 48.60, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 5.49-430.00, p < 0.001) and inpatient status (OR = 29.00, 95 % CI: 1.95-430.00, p = 0.014) were risk factors for the detection of FQ-resistant bacteria.
CONCLUSIONS: The detection rate of FQ-resistant bacteria was significantly higher with TRBx ABP and inpatient status. These findings have important implications for the management of ABP and antimicrobial treatment, especially for TRBx ABP, which should be considered a separate category.

(1) Background: To identify a particular setting of biopsy-naïve patients in which it would be reasonable to offer only cognitive targeted prostate biopsy (PBx) with a transrectal approach. (2) Methods: We designed an observational retrospective pilot study. Patients with a prostatic specific antigen (PSA) level > 10 ng/mL, either a normal or suspicious digital rectal examination (DRE), and a lesion with a PI-RADS score ≥ 4 in the postero-medial or postero-lateral peripheral zone were included. All patients underwent a transrectal PBx, including both systematic and targeted samples. The detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (Gleason Score ≥ 7) was chosen as the primary outcome. We described the detection rate of csPCa in systematic PBx, targeted PBx, and overall PBx. (3) A total of 92 patients were included. Prostate cancer was detected in 84 patients (91.30%) with combined biopsies. A csPCa was diagnosed in all positive cases (100%) with combined biopsies. Systematic PBxs were positive in 80 patients (86.96%), while targeted PBxs were positive in 84 men (91.30%). Targeted PBx alone would have allowed the diagnosis of csPCa in all positive cases; systematic PBx alone would have missed the diagnosis of 8/84 (9.52%) csPCa cases (4 negative patients and 4 not csPCa) (p = 0.011). (4) Conclusions: Cognitive targeted PBx with a transrectal approach could be offered alone to diagnose csPCa in biopsy-naïve patients with PSA ≥ 10 ng/mL, either normal or suspicious DRE, and a lesion with PI-RADS score ≥ 4 in the postero-medial or postero-lateral peripheral zone.

Background Local anesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy (LATP) is a widely used diagnostic procedure for prostate cancer. As a diagnostic procedure, it should carry minimal risk. However, morbidity resulting from prostate biopsy is frequent. Prostate biopsy, like any other intervention, carries a significant risk of various infections, ranging from urinary tract infections (UTIs) to potentially life-threatening conditions like sepsis. Aim This study examined the rate of infections following a prostate biopsy at a single center and sought to identify risk factors that could increase the likelihood of developing an infection. Methods A retrospective review was conducted on all 168 patients who underwent LATP biopsy between 01/04/2022 and 01/04/2023. Data were collected from the Clinical Record and Reporting System (CRRS). Patient characteristics, including age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, prostate volume, the main indication for the biopsy, number of cores taken, antibiotic prophylaxis, and comorbidities were analyzed. The inclusion criteria encompassed all patients receiving this procedure within the specified timeframe, without restrictions on age, underlying health conditions, or medical history. No exclusion criteria were applied, aiming to comprehensively analyze and capture the full spectrum of patient outcomes and characteristics associated with these biopsies during the study period. Results In terms of socio-demographics, all patients were male with an average age (mean) of 65.5 years, a mean PSA level of 13.9 ng/dL, and an average prostate volume of 66.1 mL. On average, 23.2 biopsy cores were taken. All patients received antibiotic prophylaxis, mainly ciprofloxacin. Despite this, 1.78% of patients (n=3) developed post-biopsy infections. Two of these patients had diabetes mellitus, and two had a large prostate volume of 95 mL.

Introduction A transperineal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TPB) under local anaesthetics (LA) after a prostate MRI scan is the gold standard for performing a prostate biopsy in patients with suspected prostate cancer. It has superseded transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSB). Historically, TRUSB by definition was performed in a contaminated environment and was routinely covered with antibiotics to reduce the risks of infection. Despite this, the rate of post-biopsy urosepsis has been documented to be as high as 5% in some series. In the transition from TRUSB to the establishment of a TPB under LA service in our unit, we continued to use a single dose of oral antibiotics for all patients attending for biopsy. The aim of this study is to establish whether the use of single-dose antibiotics has any effect on morbidity rates post-TPB. Methods A retrospective analysis of complications was carried out on 326 consecutive patients, who underwent TPB over a six-month period. One cohort of patients were biopsied with no antibiotic cover (n=149, 45.7%) as compared to another cohort who were given a single dose of oral antibiotics (n=177, 54.3%). Those patients in the group receiving antibiotics received either a single dose of co-amoxiclav or a single dose of ciprofloxacin. Patients with indwelling urethral catheters or with a urinary tract infection (UTI) were excluded from the analyses. All patients were followed- up after a multidisciplinary team meeting discussion (MDT) with either a telephone or a face-to-face consultation. Results A total of 324 (99.4%) patients did not report post-procedural complications. Two patients from the antibiotic group presented with infectious complications (1.1%); one patient was admitted with a prostate abscess and required drainage under general anaesthesia, and another was admitted with urosepsis requiring intravenous antibiotics. In the group who did not receive antibiotics, there were no complications reported, which was not significantly different compared to the antibiotic group (p=0.50). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that the routine use of single-dose antibiotics with TPB does not affect morbidity rates. On the basis of this investigation, we have now stopped using routine antibiotic cover for patients undergoing an LA TPB.

BACKGROUND: Transrectal prostate biopsy (TRPB) is a common procedure used to obtain a prostate biopsy. Although generally safe, complications may occur including infection. Preprocedural antimicrobial prophylaxis is recommended to minimize risk of subsequent infection.
METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review via the computerized patient record system from January 1, 2018 to February 28, 2022. The study included patients who underwent a TRPB at the Western New York, Syracuse, or Albany Stratton Veterans Affairs Healthcare Systems.
RESULTS: This study included a total of 932 patients who underwent TRPB. Postoperative infection occurred in 3.2% (n = 30) of patients within 14days of the TRPB. Of the 30 patients who developed an infection, 30% (n = 9) resulted in bacteremia. For the 932 patients evaluated, 24 different antibiotic regimens were used, none of which followed guideline recommendations. None of the regimens were found to have an impact on rates of subsequent infection.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest a need for guideline adherence. There was no benefit to using the guideline-discordant regimens as they were not associated with a decreased risk of infection, and in many cases exposed patients to unnecessarily broad and prolonged antibiotic regimens.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to determine the effect of virtual reality glasses application on pain, anxiety, and patient satisfaction during a transrectal prostate biopsy.
METHODS: The study was conducted with pre-tests, post-tests, and a control group, using a randomized controlled experimental research design. A total of 70 patients (35 in the intervention group and 35 in the control group) were included in the study. The intervention group watched a video with virtual reality glasses during the biopsy process. A Descriptive Information Form, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-I, STAI-II), Scale of Patient Perception of Hospital Experience with Nursing Care (PPHEN), and Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS) were used for data collection. To evaluate the data, numbers, percentages, mean, standard deviation, chi-square, paired sample t test, independent samples t test, regression analysis, and Cronbach\'s alpha Reliability Coefficient were used.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of descriptive and clinical characteristics (p > .05). The mean VAS and STAI post-test scores of the patients in the intervention group were lower than the control group, and the difference between them was statistically significant (p < .05). The mean PPHEN post-test scores of the patients in the intervention group were significantly higher than those in the control group (p < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The application of virtual reality glasses during a transrectal prostate biopsy significantly reduced the level of pain and anxiety and increased patient satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common malignant solid tumour in men aged >70 years and is the second most common cause of death from oncological circumstances.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different short-term prophylactic antibiotic regimens in transrectal prostate biopsy (PB) on the incidence of infectious complications.
METHODS: Patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided PB between January 2021 and December 2022 were included in the prospective randomized study. According to the regimen of prophylaxis, patients were randomized into three groups: (1) fosfomycin trometamol 3 g, 3 h before the procedure + ciprofloxacin 500 mg, 2 h before the procedure; (2) fosfomycin trometamol 3 g, 3 h before and 24 h after the procedure; (3) ciprofloxacin 500 mg 12, 2 h before the procedure, and 12 h after the procedure. A rectal swab was performed 1-2 weeks before PB to evaluate the culture findings. Complications were evaluated during follow-up visits within one month after PB.
RESULTS: In the monitored period, 605 PBs were performed, and 544 patients met the inclusion criteria (184, 161, and 199 in groups 1, 2, and 3). Infectious complications occurred in 10 cases (1.83%), namely 3, 4, and 3 according to patient groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the individual groups. None of the patients required hospitalization and all were free of symptoms of sepsis.
CONCLUSIONS: Short-term antibiotic prophylaxis in PB using fosfomycin trometamol, ciprofloxacin, or their combination appears to be effective. Fosfomycin trometamol is a suitable alternative to fluoroquinolone antibiotics.

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common malignant neoplasms in middle-aged and elderly men. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy is the standard method for diagnosing prostate cancer but is associated with a high incidence of infectious compli-cations. A review of the literature on optimizing the prevention of infectious complications when performing transrectal prostate biopsy is presented. The main risk factors and the common measures to prevent the development of complications are discussed, including a study of using fosfomycin trometamol as the preferred drug for antibacterial prophylaxis. Fosfomycin meets the requirements for empirical prophylaxis, but further clinical studies are needed.

OBJECTIVE: Rectal bleeding is a common complication of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRPB). Massive rectal bleeding after TRPB can be life threatening. We initiated proctoscopy after TRPB to clarify the incidence of rectal bleeding and evaluated the usefulness of proctoscopy for controlling bleeding after TRPB.
METHODS: Two hundred and fifty six patients who underwent TRPB were included in the study. TRPB was performed under local anesthesia. Post-biopsy, we performed a proctoscopy to evaluate the degree of rectal bleeding at four levels (G0, no bleeding; G1, traces; G2, venous bleeding requiring hemostasis; and G3, massive venous bleeding or arterial bleeding). Once the bleeding site on the rectal wall was identified, a gauze tampon was placed at the bleeding site and compressed for a few minutes. A second proctoscopy was performed to confirm complete hemostasis, after which the TRPB was terminated.
RESULTS: Proctoscopy revealed that the degree of bleeding was G0 in 27 cases, G1 in 104 cases, G2 in 116 cases, and G3 in nine cases. Rectal bleeding that required hemostasis (G2 and G3) was observed in 125 of 256 cases (48.3%). Among the 125 cases, bleeding was stopped by compression in 121 cases; in the remaining four cases, bleeding continued despite compression and was stopped by suturing of the bleeding site. Suturing was performed by urologists, and none of the 256 patients had problematic posterior hemorrhage.
CONCLUSIONS: Proctoscopy enables precise and effective pressure hemostasis. Moreover, suturing hemostasis under direct vision can be performed in cases in which pressure hemostasis is difficult. Continued proctoscopy allays urologists\' fear of post-TRPB rectal bleeding.