ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2025
Comparison of two analgesia applied to periprostatic nerve blockage during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy.
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA combination of local anesthetic treatments provides better pain alleviation than periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) alone during a prostate biopsy procedure. The primary objective of this study was to compare Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain levels during transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)- guided prostate biopsy whilst the use of prilocaine-lidocaine cream, diclofenac suppository, or PPNB only in a prospective, randomized study.
methodsThis study included 162 patients who had TRUS-guided prostate biopsies performed at the Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Ankara Oncology Training and Research Center within a 6 month period, from April to October 2017. Three groups of patients were randomly assigned: group 1 underwent PPNB plus prilocaine-lidocaine cream, group 2 received diclofenac suppository along with PPNB, and group 3 underwent PPNB alone. The VAS was used to measure the degree of pain: VAS 1 was used to record the pain at the time the ultrasound probe was inserted, VAS 2 was used to document the pain during PPNB, and VAS 3 was used to record the pain during needle biopsy. Following the biopsy, any complications or negative consequences were recorded.
resultsMean age or serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels were similar between the three groups. The VAS 1, VAS 2, and VAS 3 pain scores showed statistically significant difference among the three groups (p=0.001). Between groups 1 and 2, there was a statistically significant difference in VAS 1 pain scores (p=0.01). There was no statistically difference in VAS 2 and VAS 3 pain scores between the groups 1 and 2 (p=0.08 and p=0.23, respectively). Patients between the groups 3 and other groups had significantly difference in VAS pain scores (p<0.05).
conclusionIn this study, we highlight that when applied as an adjuvant to PPNB, either 5% prilocaine-lidocaine cream or a 100 mg diclofenac suppository reduced pain levels relative to PPNB alone. When compared to a 100 mg diclofenac suppository, prilocaine-lidocaine cream significantly reduces pain during the insertion and manipulation of the ultrasound probe.
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.