ArticleInfection prevention in practice2022
Introduction of surgical site surveillance post transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy and the impact on infection rates.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Current Approach to Complications and Difficulties during Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy is associated with infection rates between 0.3 % and 3.2%. Infectious complications include urinary tract infection, prostatitis, bacteraemia and sepsis. Surgical site surveillance in this patient cohort is becoming increasingly important given global increases in antimicrobial resistance. Methods: Surgical site surveillance for patients undergoing TRUS biopsies was introduced in our hospital in 2017. All patients had a risk assessment form completed to assess for carriage or risk of carriage of multi-drug resistant organisms. An intense analysis was completed on any patient who developed an infection post-TRUS biopsy. Data was fed back on a quarterly basis to a multi-disciplinary working group. Members of this group include a Consultant Microbiologist, Infection Prevention and Control Nurse, Consultant Urologist, Antimicrobial Pharmacists and Clinical Nurse Ward Managers. Results: 784 TRUS-guided biopsy of the prostate procedures were performed between January 1 st 2017 and the end of the third quarter, 2021. The rate of infection post-TRUS was 2.7% in 2017, 3.4% in 2018 and 3.2% in 2019. This improved to 0% in 2020 and 0.8% in the first three quarters of 2021. Conclusions: Several interventions were introduced resulting in a sustained reduction in infection rates in this cohort. These include changing the choice of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis, improvement in the timing of antibiotic prophylaxis and scheduling of other urology procedures. The introduction of surgical site surveillance and multi-disciplinary input has demonstrated a reduction in infection rates post TRUS biopsy.
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.