ArticleArab journal of urology2026
Infection rates of trans-perineal versus trans-rectal prostate biopsy: A Middle Eastern tertiary center experience-Time for a change?
Article in Arab journal of urology, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Prostate cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in men, with transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy being the most frequently used method of tissue diagnosis in the past. With the introduction of the new modality of trans-perineal (TP) ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, urologists and radiologists adopted this new technique for the decreased rate of complications such as urinary tract infections, bacteremia, sepsis and the avoidance of antimicrobial prophylaxis. We aim to compare the infectious rates of TRUS versus TP biopsy from our Middle Eastern tertiary care center. Methods: Retrospective data was collected on patients from our medical records from May 2019 till December 2023 at our institution. The data included adult male patients aged 18 years and above undergoing TP or TRUS prostate biopsy. Patients with positive urine culture before biopsy were excluded. Electronic medical records, pathology and laboratory reports were reviewed to collect patient-related data including age, BMI, smoking, alcohol consumption, medical history and comorbidities. In addition, variables related to the procedure type, the target lesion location, antibiotic prophylaxis, bowl preparation, number of cores taken, and laterality of the tumor were included. Results: A total of 745 patients underwent an ultrasound guided prostate biopsy performed by 6 attending urologists at our institution. Among them, 157 (21.1%) patients underwent TRUS biopsy, while 588 (78.9%) underwent TP biopsy. Within one month of the biopsy, 13 patients (1.7%) developed UTI. 6 of them had TRUS (4.1%), and 7 had TP (1.2%) with Conclusion: TP prostate biopsy carries a lower risk of infectious complications and requires no antibiotic prophylaxis compared to TRUS biopsy of the prostate. These results advocate the superiority of the use of TP biopsy over TRUS biopsy.
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.