Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41417253›Full record

Observational studyRevista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social2026

[Efficiency and safety of transperineal prostate biopsy with a single access point].

Carlos Ríos-Melgarejo, Enrique Pulido-Contreras, José Ramón Velasco-Rubio, Esteban Gastélum-Rivera, Miguel Ángel García-Padilla

Abstract readComparative StudyEnglish AbstractObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Carlos Ríos-MelgarejoInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Centro Médico Nacional del Bajío, Hospital de Especialidades No. 1, Servicio de Urología. León, Guanajuato, México.ORCID 0000-0001-9360-8450
Enrique Pulido-ContrerasInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Centro Médico Nacional del Bajío, Hospital de Especialidades No. 1, Servicio de Urología. León, Guanajuato, México.ORCID 0000-0003-1069-5996
José Ramón Velasco-RubioInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Centro Médico Nacional del Bajío, Hospital de Especialidades No. 1, Servicio de Urología. León, Guanajuato, México.ORCID 0000-0003-1069-5996
Esteban Gastélum-RiveraInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Centro Médico Nacional del Bajío, Hospital de Especialidades No. 1, Servicio de Urología. León, Guanajuato, México.ORCID 0000-0002-1292-9402
Miguel Ángel García-PadillaInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Centro Médico Nacional del Bajío, Hospital de Especialidades No. 1, Servicio de Urología. León, Guanajuato, México.ORCID 0000-0001-5467-0139

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common neoplasm in men. Transrectal prostate biopsy is the standard for diagnosing PCa, but it presents complications. Transperineal biopsy has gained popularity due to its better detection rates and fewer complications. Objective: To compare the efficiency and complication rates between single-access point transperineal prostate biopsy (TPPB) and transrectal prostate biopsy (TRPB) in patients with suspected PCa. Material and methods: Information was collected and analyzed from 241 patients with suspected PCa, divided into 2 groups: 171 in the TPPB group and 70 in the TRPB group. Pathology results were collected and complications were identified. Results: Out of the 241 patients, 132 had positive biopsies (54.77%) and 109 negative (45.22%). TPPB was positive in 60.2%, compared to 41.4% of TRPB (p = 0.008). Complications in TPPB were hematuria (53.8%), pain (6.4%), hemospermia (6.4%), and acute urinary retention (2.3%). TPPB shown to be a protective factor for complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.028, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.009-0.9; p < 0.001), compared to the TRPB technique (OR 35.5, 95% CI 10.7-117.6; p < 0.001). Conclusions: TPPB offers a better detection rate for PCa and it should be adopted as the first-choice method for PCa diagnosis, given that it has a lower complication rate and can be performed without the need for bowel preparation or antibiotic prophylaxis.

Indexed as

ProstateProstatic NeoplasmsAgedBiopsyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerineumRetrospective StudiesAntígeno Prostático EspecíficoBiopsiaBiopsyCáncer de PróstataNeoplasias ProstáticasPróstataProstateProstate CancerProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID41417253
PMCPMC12747442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.