Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31250168›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2019

Comparison of analgesic techniques in MRI-guided in-bore prostate biopsy.

M Quentin, C Arsov, T Ullrich, B Valentin, A Hiester, D Blondin, P Albers, G Antoch, L Schimmöller

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Impact of virtual reality on pain management in transrectal MRI-guided prostate biopsy.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

M QuentinDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
C ArsovDepartment of Urology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
T UllrichDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
B ValentinDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
A HiesterDepartment of Urology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
D BlondinDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
P AlbersDepartment of Urology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
G AntochDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
L SchimmöllerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. Lars.Schimmoeller@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate different analgesic techniques in MRI-guided in-bore prostate biopsy (IB-GB) regarding the influence on patient procedural experience of pain.

methodsTwo hundred fifty-two consecutive patients who had received an IB-GB either with intrarectal instillation of 2% lidocaine gel (n = 126, group A) or with periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) with 2% mepivacaine (n = 126, group B) were retrospectively included in this study. Pain scores were measured on a visual analog scale, the operating room time (ORT) was recorded for each biopsy and correlations between the parameters were analysed.

resultsPain scores for IB-GB were slightly lower in group B compared with group A (2.0 ± 1.9; 2.4 ± 1.7; p = 0.02). In group A, significantly more targeted biopsy cores were acquired (group B: 5.2 ± 1.1; group A: 5.6 ± 0.8; p < 0.01). ORT was comparable and not significantly different in both groups. There was only a weak correlation between pain scores and ORT in group B (r

conclusionsPain levels are generally low for MRI-guided in-bore biopsy using either PPNB or intrarectal instillation of lidocaine gel. A statistically significant, slightly lower pain score was documented for PPNB and might be preferred when the focus is analgesia. On the other hand, due to the minor difference and easier administration, intrarectal gel instillation seems to be a reasonable practice for standard analgesia for MRI-guided in-bore biopsy. KEY POINTS: • Pain levels were low for MRI-guided in-bore biopsy using either PPNB or intrarectal instillation of lidocaine gel as analgesic method. • PPNB prior to IB-GB resulted in a slightly lower pain score but required a higher effort. • Intrarectal gel anaesthesia seems to be a reasonable practice for standard analgesia for IB-GB in an outpatient setting.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAnalgesiaAnesthetics, LocalBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleHumansLidocaineMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMepivacaineMiddle AgedNerve BlockOperative TimePainPain ManagementPain MeasurementAnesthetics, LocalLidocaineMepivacaineAnalgesicsImage-guided biopsyMagnetic resonance–guided interventional proceduresProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID31250168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.