ArticleCureus2026
The Evolution of Prostate Biopsy: A Retrospective Comparison of Transperineal and Transrectal Approaches Under Local Anaesthesia.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective First-line tissue sampling for prostate cancer can be performed using either transrectal ultrasound biopsy (TRUS) or local anaesthetic transperineal biopsy (LATP). The aim of this study is to compare these two techniques, examining outcomes of procedure tolerability, complications and cancer detection rate. Methods A retrospective, single-centre cohort study of patients undergoing prostate biopsy was performed. A telephone questionnaire was completed 72 hours post-biopsy, focusing on pain scores and complications. Cancer detection rates were also recorded. Results This study included 110 patients (55 LATP, 55 TRUS). Clinical data examining age, digital rectal examination findings, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, prostate volume and prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score were gathered. Tolerability in both LATP and TRUS was similar. The median pain score on ultrasound probe use and biopsy gun deployment was marginally higher in the TRUS group. Difficulty passing urine occurred in 9% of LATP and 16% of TRUS (p=0.3916). Haematuria was seen in 58% of LATP and 73% of TRUS (p=0.1600). No patient required hospital admission. Cancer detection rates for LATP versus TRUS were 58.2% and 47.3%, respectively, (p = 0.3397) with higher LATP detection also seen in isolated PI-RADS 4/5 cases (p=0.2270). No statistically significant difference was found in detection rates or complications. Conclusion LATP is safe when compared to TRUS in all aspects of procedure tolerability, complications, and cancer detection rate.
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.