Comparison of Different Rectal Cleansing Methods for Reducing Post-Procedural Infectious Complications After Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy
Urology Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 1 (2020),
26 January 2020
,
Page 42-49
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v17i1.4583
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the efficacy of three different rectal cleansing methods for reducing post-procedural infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy.
Materials and Methods: A total of 451 consecutive patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy were prospectively included in this study. All patients received targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis and underwent bowel preparation through laxative administration. The patients were divided into three groups on the basis of the method of rectal cleansing immediately before the procedure. Group I patients (n=165) underwent cleansing of the perianal skin using povidone-iodine cotton balls; group II patients (n=116) received an injection of povidone-iodine solution (0.1 g/mL) into the anal and lower rectal canals; and group III patients (n=170) received direct manual cleansing of the mucosal surface of the anus and lower rectum using povidone-iodine cotton balls. The three groups were compared regarding the incidence of post-procedural infectious complications, re-hospitalization rates, and mean length of hospital stay using one-way ANOVA, the Chi-square test, and multiple logistic regression analysis.
Results: Post-procedural infectious complications occurred in 21.8%, 11.2%, and 6.5% of groups I, II, and III, respectively (P < .001). The incidence of overall infectious complications was significantly lower in group II (95% CI: 0.232–0.958, OR = 0.472, P = .038) and group III (95% CI: 0.129–0.555, OR = 0.267, P < .001) than in group I. Re-hospitalization rates were 9.7%, 2.6%, and 0.6% in groups I, II, and III, respectively (P < .001). The incidence of re-hospitalization was significantly lower in group II (95% CI: 0.070–0.869, OR = 0.247, P = .029) and group III (95% CI: 0.007–0.421, OR = 0.055, P = .005) than in group I. The mean length of hospital stay was significantly longer in group I than in group III (P = .009).
Conclusion: Combined with targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis, direct manual cleansing of the mucosal surface of the anus and lower rectum using povidone-iodine cotton balls was most effective in preventing post-procedural infectious complications among the three different rectal cleansing methods.
How to Cite
References
Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG. Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol. 2008;10:262-80
Liss MA, Ehdaie MB, Loeb S, et al. An update of the American Urological Association white paper on the prevention and treatment of the more common complications related to prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2017;198:329-34
Walker JT, Singla N, Roehrborn CG. Reducing infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a systematic review. Rev Urol. 2016;18:73-89
Ryu JW, Jung SI, Ahn JH, et al. Povidone-iodine rectal cleansing and targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis using rectal swab cultures in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy are associated with reduced incidence of postoperative infectious complications. Int Urol Nephrol. 2016;48:1763-70
Loeb S, van den Heuvel S, Zhu X, Bangma CH, Schröder FH, Roobol MJ. Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1110-4
Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2011;186:1830-4
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:876-92
Valverde A, Msika S, Kianmanesh R, et al. Povidone-iodine vs sodium hypochlorite enema for mechanical preparation before elective open colonic or rectal resection with primary anastomosis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg. 2006;141:1168-74
Williamson DA, Barrett LK, Rogers BA, Freeman JT, Hadway P, Paterson DL. Infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound–guided prostate biopsy: new challenges in the era of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57:267-74
Pu C, Bai Y, Yuan H, et al. Reducing the risk of infection for transrectal prostate biopsy with povidone–iodine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2014;46:1691-8
Ghafoori M, Shakiba M, Seifmanesh H, Hoseini K. Decrease in infection rate following use of povidone-iodine during transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a double blind randomized clinical trial. Iran J Radiol. 2012;9:67-70
Raman JD, Lehman KK, Dewan K, Kirimanjeswara G. 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:e52670
AbuGhosh Z, Margolick J, Goldenberg SL, et al. A prospective randomized trial of povidone-iodine prophylactic cleansing of the rectum before transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2013;189:1326-31
Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, et al. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Chest. 1992;101:1644-55
Jensen MP, McFarland CA. Increasing the reliability and validity of pain intensity measurement in chronic pain patients. Pain. 1993;55:195-203
Roy J, Gatt M. Causes of surgical sepsis including bacterial translocation. Surgery. 2012;30:645-50
Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S, et al. Sepsis and 'superbugs': should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int. 2014;114:384-8
Gyorfi JR, Otteni C, Brown K, et al. Peri-procedural povidone-iodine rectal preparation reduces microorganism counts and infectious complications following ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of the prostate. World J Urol. 2014;32:905-9
Park DS, Oh JJ, Lee JH, Jang WK, Hong YK, Hong SK. Simple use of the suppository type povidone-iodine can prevent infectious complications in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Adv Urol. 2009;2009:750598
Hwang EC, Jung SI, Seo YH, et al. Risk factors for and prophylactic effect of povidone-iodine rectal cleansing on infectious complications after prostate biopsy: a retrospective cohort study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015;47:595-601
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618-29
Chen P, Chang C, Wang B-F, et al. Standardized protocol in preventing postoperative infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a retrospective study of 246 patients. Urol Sci. 2016;27:140-3
Wolf JS, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR, Hollenbeck BK, Pearle MS, Schaeffer AJ. Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol. 2008;179:1379-90
Zani EL, Clark OAC, Rodrigues Netto Jr N. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;5:CD006576
Katouli M. Population structure of gut Escherichia coli and its role in development of extra-intestinal infections. Iran J Microbiol. 2010;2:59-72
Wagenlehner FM, Van Oostrum E, Tenke P, et al. 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;63:521-7
Cuevas O, Oteo J, Lázaro E, et al. Significant ecological impact on the progression of fluoroquinolone resistance in Escherichia coli with increased community use of moxifloxacin, levofloxacin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66:664-9
Carignan A, Roussy JF, Lapointe V, Valiquette L, Sabbagh R, Pépin J. Increasing risk of infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound–guided prostate biopsies: time to reassess antimicrobial prophylaxis? Eur Urol. 2012;62:453-9
Taylor AK, Zembower TR, Nadler RB, et al. Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis using rectal swab cultures in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy is associated with reduced incidence of postoperative infectious complications and cost of care. J Urol. 2012;187:1275-9
Duplessis CA, Bavaro M, Simons MP, et al. Rectal cultures before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy reduce post-prostatic biopsy infection rates. Urology. 2012;79:556-61
Roberts MJ, Williamson DA, Hadway P, Doi SA, Gardiner RA, Paterson DL. Baseline prevalence of antimicrobial resistance and subsequent infection following prostate biopsy using empirical or altered prophylaxis: a bias-adjusted meta-analysis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2014;43:301-9
Liss MA, Kim W, Moskowitz D, Szabo RJ. Comparative effectiveness of targeted vs empirical antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent sepsis from transrectal prostate biopsy: a retrospective analysis. J Urol. 2015;194:397-402
Liss MA, Johnson JR, Porter SB, et al. Clinical and microbiological determinants of infection after transrectal prostate biopsy. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60:979-87
Simsir A, Kismali E, Mammadov R, Gunaydin G, Cal C. Is it possible to predict sepsis, the most serious complication in prostate biopsy? Urol Int. 2010;84:395-9
Nicolle LE. Catheter associated urinary tract infections. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2014;3:23
- Abstract Viewed: 900 times
- pdf/4583 Downloaded: 462 times