Singh Santosh Kumar, Kumar Ashok, Griwan Mahavir Singh, Sen Jyotsna
Department of Urology, Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, India.
Korean J Urol. 2012 Aug;53(8):547-51. doi: 10.4111/kju.2012.53.8.547. Epub 2012 Aug 16.
Controversy exists over the pain during prostate biopsy. Periprostatic nerve block is a commonly used anaesthetic technique during transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. The recent trend toward increasing the number of cores has become popular. This practice further increases the need for a proper anaesthetic application. We compared the efficacy of periprostatic nerve block with or without intraprostatic nerve block.
We conducted a prospective double-blinded placebo-controlled study at our institute with 142 consecutive patients. Patients were randomly assigned into 3 groups. Group 1 received periprostatic nerve block with intraprostatic nerve block with 1% lignocaine. Group 2 patients were administered periprostatic nerve block only with 1% lignocaine. Group 3 received no anaesthesia. Patients were asked to grade their level of pain by using an 11-point linear analogue scale at the time of ultrasound probe insertion, at the time of anaesthesia, during biopsy, and 30 minutes after biopsy.
The study groups were comparable in demographic profile, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and prostate size. The mean pain scores at the time of biopsy in groups 1, 2, and 3 were 2.70, 3.39, and 4.16, respectively. Group 1 recorded the minimum mean pain score of 2.70 during prostate biopsy, which was significantly lower than the scores of groups 2 and 3 (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in pain scores among the 3 groups during probe insertion, during anaesthesia, or at 30 minutes after biopsy (p>0.05).
Periprostatic nerve block with intraprostatic nerve block provides better pain control than does periprostatic nerve block alone in TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.
前列腺活检时的疼痛存在争议。前列腺周围神经阻滞是经直肠超声(TRUS)引导下前列腺活检常用的麻醉技术。近期增加活检样本数量的趋势愈发普遍。这种做法进一步增加了合理应用麻醉的需求。我们比较了前列腺周围神经阻滞联合或不联合前列腺内神经阻滞的效果。
我们在本机构对142例连续患者进行了一项前瞻性双盲安慰剂对照研究。患者被随机分为3组。第1组接受1%利多卡因的前列腺周围神经阻滞联合前列腺内神经阻滞。第2组患者仅接受1%利多卡因的前列腺周围神经阻滞。第3组未接受麻醉。要求患者在超声探头插入时、麻醉时、活检期间以及活检后30分钟,使用11点线性模拟量表对疼痛程度进行评分。
研究组在人口统计学特征、前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)水平和前列腺大小方面具有可比性。第1、2、3组活检时的平均疼痛评分分别为2.70、3.39和4.16。第1组在前列腺活检期间记录的最低平均疼痛评分为2.70,显著低于第2组和第3组(p<0.001)。在探头插入时、麻醉期间或活检后30分钟,3组之间的疼痛评分无显著差异(p>0.05)。
在TRUS引导下的前列腺活检中,前列腺周围神经阻滞联合前列腺内神经阻滞比单纯前列腺周围神经阻滞能提供更好的疼痛控制。