ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2023
A cost-effective transperineal prostate biopsy method utilizes the original transrectal setting.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTransperineal prostate biopsy (TPB) offers an alternative to transrectal prostate biopsy (TRB) for prostate cancer diagnosis. However, TPB may result in additional disposable and capital equipment costs, which can limit implementation within urology practice. Herein, we report the initial experience of a novel TPB technique within a tertiary referral center in Taiwan. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective review of all men undergoing prostate biopsy January to October in 2021 was performed. Both biopsy techniques were performed with the same setting using the convex-convex array ultrasound probe under local anesthesia alone or with the addition of sedation using double free-hand technique. Complications within 30 days and cancer detection rate (CDR) were compared between the groups.
resultsA total of 118 biopsies were included for final analysis. Eleven patients received systematic biopsy with additional MRI-targeted biopsy (TB) cores with all performed via a transperineal approach. The TPB group (n = 47) and TRB group (n = 58) had similar CDR after excluding TB cores (46.8% vs. 44.8%, p = 0.675). General complication rates for TPB were significantly lower than in the TRB group (27.7% vs. 46.6%, p = 0.047). No patients undergoing TPB had infectious complications, where five episodes were recorded in the TRB group (p = 0.114).
conclusionsTPB performed with convex-convex ultrasound probe and double free-hand technique is safe, feasible, cost-effective, and demonstrates equivalent CDR to TRB. Its use may eliminate infectious hospitalizations while minimizing the need for additional capital in the adoption of TPB.
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.