ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Prevention of infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: comparison of povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine, and formalin disinfection.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to compare the efficacy of three different antiseptic methods to determine the most effective prophylactic approach to prevent infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-PB). The methods evaluated were transrectal povidone-iodine injection (TRPI), biopsy needle disinfection with chlorhexidine, and biopsy needle disinfection with formalin.
methodsBetween January 2018 and January 2023, 904 patients who underwent TRUS-PB were retrospectively analyzed. All patients had prophylactic antibiotic use and negative urine/rectal culture results. Patients were divided into three groups according to the antiseptic protocol: Group 1 (n = 245) received only TRPI injection into the rectum before biopsy, Group 2 (n = 295) received only chlorhexidine needle disinfection before biopsy, and Group 3 (n = 364) received only formalin needle disinfection before biopsy. The biopsy needles used in our clinic are not single-use and are used on other patients after sterilization. The primary endpoint was the incidence of infectious complications within 30 days post-procedure. Continuous variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test, while categorical variables were analyzed using the Chi-square test, and post-hoc analysis was applied for pairwise comparisons between groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors associated with postoperative infection.
resultsThe overall infection rate was 20.4%. Infection rates were 4.5% in the TRPI group, 16.6% in the chlorhexidine group, and 34.1% in the formalin group (p < 0.001). The TRPI group showed significantly lower rates of all infectious complications compared to other groups. Disinfection of biopsy needles with chlorhexidine was found to be significantly more effective in preventing infectious complications compared to disinfection with formalin (p < 0.001).
conclusionTRPI injection before TRUS-PB appears to be more effective in preventing post-biopsy infectious complications compared to needle disinfection with chlorhexidine or formalin. This method may be considered as a preferred antiseptic approach for TRUS-PB procedures.
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.