Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015;68(2):223-8.
doi: 10.5173/ceju.2015.608. Epub 2015 Jun 18.

Transrectal-ultrasound prostatic biopsy preparation: rectal enema vs. mechanical bowel preparation

Affiliations

Transrectal-ultrasound prostatic biopsy preparation: rectal enema vs. mechanical bowel preparation

Cosimo De Nunzio et al. Cent European J Urol. 2015.

Abstract

Introduction: Transrectal prostate biopsy (TRUSbx) is the standard for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Different bowel preparations are used for patients undergoing TRUSbx. The aim of our study was to compare two different bowel preparations for TRUSbx.

Material and methods: From May 2012 and onwards, a selected group of men undergoing TRUS 12-core prostate biopsy were enrolled into a prospective database. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive a rectal enema (Group A) the night before the procedure or polyethylene glycol 34.8 grams/4 liters of water the day before the procedure (Group B). A VAS scale to evaluate the patients' discomfort according to the two preparations was collected. The same antibiotic prophylaxis was performed in both groups. All complications were prospectively recorded and graded according to the Clavien Classification System (CCS).

Results: A total of 198 patients were consecutively enrolled. Mean age was 67.5 ±7.9 years, mean body mass index (BMI) was 27.1 ±4.2 Kg/m(2), mean PSA value was 9.3 ±12.6 ng/ml and the mean prostatic volume was 60.6 ±29 ml. 97 patients were enrolled in Group A and 101 in Group B. Overall post-biopsy morbidity rate was 60%. No significant differences for low-grade and high-grade complications was observed between the two groups. Patients receiving the rectal enema presented with a significantly lower VAS score (3.1 ±1.1 vs. 5.9 ±1.7; p = 0.02).

Conclusions: Our study confirmed that a rectal enema should be considered as the standard bowel preparation in patients undergoing a TRUS biopsy; it is as effective as PEG and associated with less discomfort.

Keywords: complications; polyethylene glycol; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer; rectal enema.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Randomization flow-chart.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rate. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1079–1092. - PubMed
    1. Persson G, Danielsson M, Rosén M, et al. Health in Sweden: The National Public Health Report 2005. Scand J Public Health Suppl. 2006;67:3–10. - PubMed
    1. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. EAU Guidelines. Eur Urol. 2014;65:124–137. - PubMed
    1. Ehdaie B, Vertosick E, Spaliviero M, et al. The Impact of Repeat Biopsies on Infectious Complications in Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2014;191:660–664. - PubMed
    1. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2011;186:1830–1834. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources