ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Prostatitis After Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy is a common way to find prostate cancer, but it can lead to infections, including sepsis. Fluoroquinolones have historically served as a means of antibiotic prophylaxis; however, escalating resistance has diminished their efficacy, thereby requiring alternative prophylactic approaches.
objectiveTo compare infectious outcomes after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy across various antibiotic prophylaxis regimens and to evaluate the efficacy of single-dose intramuscular (IM) ertapenem and amikacin.
methodsThis retrospective observational study encompassed patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy from January 2015 to June 2025 at two hospitals in Lebanon. We looked at the patients' demographics, clinical characteristics, laboratory data, antibiotic prophylaxis regimens, and post-biopsy infectious complications. We used bivariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression to find links between prophylaxis strategies and the risk of infection.
resultsThere were 209 patients in total, with an average age of 66.7 years and an average prostate-specific antigen level of 18.2 ng/mL. In total, 12.9% of patients had infections after the biopsy. Patients who received single-dose IM ertapenem, either alone or in combination with fluoroquinolones, did not experience any infections. The infection rate for patients who got a single dose of IM amikacin was 3.8%, while the rate for patients who got fluoroquinolone monotherapy was 26%. Single-dose IM ertapenem or amikacin was linked to a lower risk of infection than fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis (p < 0.05). There was no meaningful distinction between ertapenem and amikacin, nor between single-agent and combination regimens. Older age and a history of positive urine culture were strongly linked to post-biopsy infection.
conclusionA single dose of IM ertapenem or amikacin appears to be associated with a lower risk of infections after a TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. They may represent a potential prophylactic alternative to fluoroquinolone-based regimens, especially in places where routine rectal culture-guided prophylaxis is not done.
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.