Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40537577›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2025

Retrospective, single center evaluation of transperineal prostate biopsy omitting antibiotic prophylaxis and omitting periinterventional screening for bacteriuria.

Francois Leboutte, Tim Schykowski, Jeroen Van de Plas, Oscar Lemmer, Andreas Neisius

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Efficiency and safety of transperineal prostate biopsy with a single access point].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Francois LeboutteDepartment of Urology, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Brüder Trier, Medical Campus Trier of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Trier, Germany. f.leboutte@bbtgruppe.de.
Tim SchykowskiDepartment of Urology, Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Kliniken Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Jeroen Van de PlasDepartment of Urology, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Brüder Trier, Medical Campus Trier of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Trier, Germany.
Oscar LemmerDepartment of Urology, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Brüder Trier, Medical Campus Trier of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Trier, Germany.
Andreas NeisiusDepartment of Urology, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Brüder Trier, Medical Campus Trier of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Trier, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough the pursuit of effective and safe early detection methods for prostate cancer has led to advancements in non-invasive tools, there are approximately one million prostate biopsies per year performed annually in the EU [11]. The use of the transperineal approach to prostate biopsy is increasing because it offers a significantly reduced incidence of post-biopsy sepsis complications compared to transrectal biopsies and therefore is the recommended approach in the European Association of Urology guidelines. However, the consensus on the standard of care for antibiotic prophylaxis in some or all transperineal biopsy cases is only beginning to be established. As with transrectal biopsies, there are concerns about antibiotic stewardship, antibiotic side effects and labor and material costs associated with prophylaxis.

methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 636 patients who underwent transperineal prostate biopsies without the use of antibiotic prophylaxis between January 2019 and August 2020. The primary endpoint was the rate of postinterventional infectious complications, with secondary endpoints including the rate of general complications and associated risk factors.

resultsThe rate of all complications was 1.9%. There were 7/636 (1.1%) infectious complications, of which 3 (0.50%) were prostatitis, 1 (0.16%) was epididymitis, 2 (0.3%) were infections resulting in hospitalization and 1 (0.16%) urosepsis with ICU care. No identified risk factors were associated with infectious complications or post-interventional bleeding. Notably, the cohort was not systematically screened for bacteriuria before biopsy, and patients usually categorized as high risk for post-biopsy complications were not excluded. The rates of infectious complications and sepsis were lower than that reported for transrectal biopsies with antibiotic prophylaxis.

conclusionThis study supports the relative safety of omitting antibiotic prophylaxis in transperineal prostate biopsies, showcasing a minimal infectious complication rate. The findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on antibiotic stewardship, emphasizing the need for judicious use to mitigate resistance, avoid allergic side effects and decrease the labor and material costs associated with transperineal prostate biopsy.

Indexed as

BacteriuriaBiopsyEarly Detection of CancerPostoperative ComplicationsProstateProstatic NeoplasmsAgedAntibiotic ProphylaxisAntimicrobial StewardshipCross InfectionEpididymitisHumansMaleMiddle AgedProstatitisRetrospective StudiesFusion biopsyImage-guided biopsy [MeSH]Intraoperative complications [MeSH]Prostatic neoplasms [MeSH]TransperinealTransrectal

Identifiers

PMID40537577
PMCPMC12179225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.