Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2020
Transrectal versus transperineal prostate biopsy under intravenous anaesthesia: a clinical, microbiological and cost analysis of 2048 cases over 11 years at a tertiary institution.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roberts Matthew J, Macdonald Alastair, Ranasinghe Sachinka, Bennett Harrison, Teloken Patrick E, Harris Patrick, Paterson David, Coughlin Geoff, Dunglison Nigel, Esler Rachel, Gardiner Robert A, Elliott Thomas, Gordon Louisa, Yaxley John
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transrectal (TR) and transperineal (TP) approaches for prostate biopsy have different morbidity profiles. Our institution transitioned to a preference for multiparametric MRI-based triage and TP biopsy since 2014. The aim of this study was to compare clinical, microbiological and health economic outcomes between TR and TP prostate biopsy.
METHODS: A consecutive cohort study considered prostate biopsies over an 11 year period. Hospital presentations across the region within 30 days of biopsy were analysed for details and subsequent outcomes according to biopsy approach. Cost for each encounter (routine and unplanned) were analysed and generalised linear models applied, as well as cost implications for inclusion of mpMRI-based triage and TP biopsy preference.
RESULTS: In total, 2048 prostate biopsies were performed. Similar re-presentation rates per occurred for each biopsy approach (90 patients, TR 4.8%, TP 3.8%, p = 0.29), with 23 patients presenting more than once (119 total presentations). Presentations after TR biopsy were more likely to be of infectious aetiology (TR 2.92%, TP 0.26% de novo, p < 0.001) and result in hospital admission (TR 43/49, 93.4%; TP 14/24, 58.3%; p = 0.007) for similar rates of urinary retention (TR 2.76% vs TP 3.63%, p = 1). The mean overall cost (biopsy and re-presentations) was higher for the TP group (p < 0.001), adjusted for year and age, but reduced over time and was similar for patients who re-presented (p = 0.98). Incorporation of mpMRI (with subsequently avoided biopsies), TP biopsy and re-presentations resulted in AU$783.27 saving per biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: TR biopsy resulted in more infectious complications and hospital admissions than TP biopsy for similar rates of re-presentation and urinary retention. TP biopsy costs reduced over time and use in conjunction with mpMRI provides an overall cost saving. Routine TP biopsy is safe and feasible, with further cost savings expected with other approaches (local anaesthetic) under investigation.
METHODS: A consecutive cohort study considered prostate biopsies over an 11 year period. Hospital presentations across the region within 30 days of biopsy were analysed for details and subsequent outcomes according to biopsy approach. Cost for each encounter (routine and unplanned) were analysed and generalised linear models applied, as well as cost implications for inclusion of mpMRI-based triage and TP biopsy preference.
RESULTS: In total, 2048 prostate biopsies were performed. Similar re-presentation rates per occurred for each biopsy approach (90 patients, TR 4.8%, TP 3.8%, p = 0.29), with 23 patients presenting more than once (119 total presentations). Presentations after TR biopsy were more likely to be of infectious aetiology (TR 2.92%, TP 0.26% de novo, p < 0.001) and result in hospital admission (TR 43/49, 93.4%; TP 14/24, 58.3%; p = 0.007) for similar rates of urinary retention (TR 2.76% vs TP 3.63%, p = 1). The mean overall cost (biopsy and re-presentations) was higher for the TP group (p < 0.001), adjusted for year and age, but reduced over time and was similar for patients who re-presented (p = 0.98). Incorporation of mpMRI (with subsequently avoided biopsies), TP biopsy and re-presentations resulted in AU$783.27 saving per biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: TR biopsy resulted in more infectious complications and hospital admissions than TP biopsy for similar rates of re-presentation and urinary retention. TP biopsy costs reduced over time and use in conjunction with mpMRI provides an overall cost saving. Routine TP biopsy is safe and feasible, with further cost savings expected with other approaches (local anaesthetic) under investigation.