Auffenberg Gregory B, Qi Ji, Gao Yuqing, Miller David C, Ye Zaojun, Brachulis Andrew, Linsell Susan, Gandhi Tejal N, Kraklau David, Montie James E, Ghani Khurshid R
Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
BJU Int. 2018 Feb;121(2):232-238. doi: 10.1111/bju.13982. Epub 2017 Sep 3.
To determine whether a needle disinfectant step during transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy is associated with lower rates of infection-related hospitalisation.
We conducted a retrospective analysis of all TRUS-guided prostate biopsies taken across the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) from January 2012 to March 2015. Natural variation in technique allowed us to evaluate for differences in infection-related hospitalisations based on whether or not a needle disinfectant technique was used. The disinfectant technique was an intra-procedural step to cleanse the biopsy needle with antibacterial solution after each core was sampled (i.e., 10% formalin or 70% isopropyl alcohol). After grouping biopsies according to whether or not the procedure included a needle disinfectant step, we compared the rate of infection-related hospitalisations within 30 days of biopsy. Generalised estimating equation models were fit to adjust for potential confounders.
During the evaluated period, 17 954 TRUS-guided prostate biopsies were taken with 5 321 (29.6%) including a disinfectant step. The observed rate of infection-related hospitalisation was lower when a disinfectant technique was used during biopsy (0.60% vs 0.90%; P = 0.04). After accounting for differences between groups the adjusted hospitalisation rate in the disinfectant group was 0.85% vs 1.12% in the no disinfectant group (adjusted odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.50-1.15; P = 0.19).
In this observational analysis, hospitalisations for infectious complications were less common when the TRUS-guided prostate biopsy included a needle disinfection step. However, after adjusting for potential confounders the effect of needle disinfection was not statistically significant. Prospective evaluation is warranted to determine if this step provides a scalable and effective method to minimise infectious complications.
确定经直肠超声(TRUS)引导下前列腺穿刺活检过程中的针具消毒步骤是否与感染相关住院率较低有关。
我们对2012年1月至2015年3月期间密歇根泌尿外科手术改进协作组(MUSIC)进行的所有TRUS引导下前列腺穿刺活检进行了回顾性分析。技术上的自然差异使我们能够根据是否使用针具消毒技术来评估感染相关住院情况的差异。消毒技术是在每个组织芯取样后(即10%福尔马林或70%异丙醇)用抗菌溶液清洁活检针的术中步骤。在根据穿刺活检过程中是否包括针具消毒步骤对活检进行分组后,我们比较了活检后30天内感染相关住院率。采用广义估计方程模型来调整潜在的混杂因素。
在评估期间,共进行了17954例TRUS引导下前列腺穿刺活检,其中5321例(29.6%)包括消毒步骤。活检时使用消毒技术时,观察到的感染相关住院率较低(0.60%对0.90%;P = 0.04)。在考虑组间差异后,消毒组的调整后住院率为0.85%,未消毒组为1.12%(调整后的优势比为0.76,95%置信区间为0.50 - 1.15;P = 0.19)。
在这项观察性分析中,TRUS引导下前列腺穿刺活检包括针具消毒步骤时,感染并发症的住院情况较少见。然而,在调整潜在混杂因素后,针具消毒的效果无统计学意义。有必要进行前瞻性评估,以确定该步骤是否提供了一种可扩展且有效的方法来减少感染并发症。