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
. 2022 Apr 18;37(15):e115.
doi: 10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e115.

Effect of Sedation Anesthesia With Intravenous Propofol on Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy Outcomes

Hee Youn Kim  1 , Young Hyo Choi  1 , Seung-Ju Lee  2
Affiliations

Effect of Sedation Anesthesia With Intravenous Propofol on Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy Outcomes

Hee Youn Kim et al. J Korean Med Sci. .

Abstract

Background: Sedation anesthesia during transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy is known to decrease patient pain and anxiety, but little is known whether it affects the procedure's prostate cancer detection and complication rates. This study aimed to determine the effect of sedation anesthesia with intravenous (IV) propofol on TRUS-guided prostate biopsy outcomes.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of 2,119 patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy between November 2009 and February 2019 was undertaken. The patients were divided into two groups: patients who underwent sedation anesthesia with IV propofol and patients who underwent local anesthesia with intrarectal lidocaine gel instillation. Cancer detection and complication rates were compared between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate the effects of sedation anesthesia with IV propofol on prostate cancer detection and complication rates.

Results: The cancer detection rate of patients in the sedation group was 34.0%, whereas it was 29.2% in the local group (P = 0.024). Multivariate logistic regression analysis regarding factors associated with cancer detection rate after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prostate specific antigen (PSA) < 10 showed that IV propofol usage, age, PSA density and core length were significant factors. Multivariate logistic regression analysis regarding factors associated with complications (voiding dysfunction, bleeding and infection) showed that IV propofol usage, age and prostate size were significant factors for voiding dysfunction.

Conclusion: Sedation anesthesia with IV propofol during TRUS-guided prostate biopsy was associated with a higher cancer detection rate than local anesthesia with intrarectal lidocaine gel instillation. Cancer detection rate could be an important factor to consider when selecting for the optimal anesthesia for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.

Keywords: Deep Sedation; Image-Guided Biopsy; Propofol; Prostatic Neoplasms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

    1. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142(1):71–74. - PubMed
    1. Shoji S. Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion image-guided prostate biopsy: current status of the cancer detection and the prospects of tailor-made medicine of the prostate cancer. Investig Clin Urol. 2019;60(1):4–13. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Das CJ, Razik A, Sharma S, Verma S. Prostate biopsy: when and how to perform. Clin Radiol. 2019;74(11):853–864. - PubMed
    1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–629. - PubMed
    1. Lee C, Woo HH. Current methods of analgesia for transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy -- a systematic review. BJU Int. 2014;113(Suppl 2):48–56. - PubMed