ArticleBJUI compass2022
Comparing outcomes of transperineal to transrectal prostate biopsies performed under local anaesthesia.
Article in BJUI compass, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transrectal vs transperineal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BJU international · 2026Pooled it
- Transperineal biopsy devices in people with suspected prostate cancer - a systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- The effect of transperineal template prostate biopsy (TTPB) on selective serum biomarkers: a clinical-pilot observational study.International urology and nephrology · 2026Observational
- Article
- Impact of Approach Routes in MRI-Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy on Post-Biopsy Complications: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Article
- Review
- Meta Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Prostate Biopsy: A Comparison Between Transperineal and Transrectal Approach.Urology research & practice · 2025Review
- Prospective per-target analysis of the added value of the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System in cognitive prostate biopsy of MRI targets.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Review
- Pooled outcomes of performing freehand transperineal prostate biopsy with the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System.BJUI compass · 2022Review
- Comparing outcomes of transperineal to transrectal prostate biopsies performed under local anaesthesia.BJUI compass · 2022Article
- 2022 May Editorial: 'The Unfair Reviewer Comments'.BJUI compass · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare and review the outcomes of transperineal (TP) prostate biopsies with transrectal (TR) biopsies performed under local anaesthesia (LA). A review of the relevant published literature is presented. Patients and methods: We prospectively analysed 212 consecutive patients who underwent TP prostate biopsy using the PrecisionPoint™ access system under LA, at our institution from October 2018 to March 2020. We compared the morbidity and cancer detection rates using this approach with our historical cohort of 178 patients who underwent the TR biopsy method under LA. Results: The mean age of the TP biopsy group was 69 years, and median prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 13.17 ng/ml. Mean prostate volume was 45.1 ml with a median of 12 cores taken per patient. Patient demographics were similar to our TR biopsy cohort, with mean age of 68 years, median PSA of 10.76, mean prostate volume of 49.6 ml and a median of 12 cores taken per patient. The TP biopsy group had 0% sepsis rate compared with 2.2% in the TR group. Haematuria in the TP versus transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) cohort was 0.9% versus 1.7%, respectively. The TP biopsy-naïve group had a cancer detection rate of 63.5% (127 of 200 patients), of which 84% were ≥Grade Group 2 (GG2). The TR biopsy-naïve group had cancer detection rate of 50% (86 of 172 patients), of which 87.2% was ≥GG2. Conclusion: TP prostate biopsy had less urinary infectious and septic complications compared with the TR approach. Our data suggest at least comparable diagnostic accuracy between both biopsy approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.