He Bi-Ming, Ka-Fung Chiu Peter, Tao Tao, Lan Jian-Hua, Cai Jian-Tong, Zhou Sheng-Cai, Li Rong-Bing, Ren Yan, Ka-Lun L O, Xu Rong-Yao, Chen Jian-Rong, Lan Dong, Gao Jin-Li, Chu Shu-Guang, Jin Zhi-Chao, Huang Fang-Fang, Shi Zhen-Kai, Yang Qi-Wei, Zhou Hai, Wang Shuai-Dong, Ji Tang-Rao, Han Qi-Peng, Wang Chang-Ming, Chi-Fai N G, Wang Hai-Feng
Department of Urology, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
SH HO Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
EClinicalMedicine. 2023 Mar 23;58:101919. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101919. eCollection 2023 Apr.
We aimed to investigate perineal nerve block versus periprostatic block in pain control for men undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy.
In this prospective, randomised, blinded and parallel-group trial, men in six Chinese hospitals with suspected prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) at the point of local anaesthesia to receive a perineal nerve block or periprostatic block and followed by a transperineal prostate biopsy. Centres used their usual biopsy procedure. Operators who performed anaesthesia were trained in both techniques before the trial and were masked to the randomised allocation until the time of anaesthesia and were not involved in the subsequent biopsy procedure and any assessment or analysis. Other investigators and the patients were masked until trial completion. The primary outcome was the level of the worst pain experienced during the prostate biopsy procedure. Secondary outcomes included pain (post-biopsy at 1, 6 and 24 h), changes in blood pressure, heart rate and breathing rate during the biopsy procedure, external manifestations of pain during biopsy, anaesthesia satisfaction, the detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501055.
Between August 13, 2020, and July 20, 2022, 192 men were randomly assigned to perineal nerve block or periprostatic block, 96 per study group. Perineal nerve block was superior for the relief of pain during the biopsy procedure (mean 2.80 for perineal nerve block and 3.98 for periprostatic block; adjusted difference in means -1.17, P < 0.001). Although the perineal nerve block had a lower mean pain score at 1 h post-biopsy compared with the periprostatic block (0.23 vs 0.43, P = 0.042), they were equivalent at 6 h (0.16 vs 0.25, P = 0.389) and 24 h (0.10 vs 0.26, P = 0.184) respectively. For the change in vital signs during biopsy procedure, perineal nerve block was significantly superior to periprostatic block in terms of maximum value of systolic blood pressure, maximum value of mean arterial pressure and maximum value of heart rate. There are no statistical differences in average value of systolic blood pressure, average value of mean, average value of heart rate, diastolic blood pressure and breathing rate. Perineal nerve block was also superior to periprostatic block in external manifestations of pain (1.88 vs 3.00, P < 0.001) and anaesthesia satisfaction (8.93 vs 11.90, P < 0.001). Equivalence was shown for the detection rate of PCa (31.25% for perineal nerve block and 29.17% for periprostatic block, P = 0.753) or csPCa (23.96% for perineal nerve block and 20.83% for periprostatic block, P = 0.604). 33 (34.8%) of 96 patients in the perineal nerve block group and 40 (41.67%) of 96 patients in the periprostatic block group had at least one complication.
Perineal nerve block was superior to periprostatic block in pain control for men undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy.
Grant 2019YFC0119100 from the National Key Research and Development Program of China.
我们旨在研究会阴神经阻滞与前列腺周围阻滞在经会阴前列腺活检男性患者疼痛控制中的效果。
在这项前瞻性、随机、双盲和平行组试验中,来自六家中国医院的疑似前列腺癌男性患者在局部麻醉时被随机分配(1:1)接受会阴神经阻滞或前列腺周围阻滞,随后进行经会阴前列腺活检。各中心采用其常规活检程序。实施麻醉的操作人员在试验前接受了两种技术的培训,在麻醉前对随机分组情况保密,且不参与后续的活检程序以及任何评估或分析。其他研究人员和患者在试验完成前均处于盲态。主要结局是前列腺活检过程中经历的最严重疼痛程度。次要结局包括疼痛(活检后1、6和24小时)、活检过程中血压、心率和呼吸频率的变化、活检时疼痛的外在表现、麻醉满意度、前列腺癌(PCa)和临床显著前列腺癌的检出率。本试验已在ClinicalTrials.gov上注册,注册号为NCT04501055。
在2020年8月13日至2022年7月20日期间,192名男性被随机分配至会阴神经阻滞组或前列腺周围阻滞组,每组96人。会阴神经阻滞在缓解活检过程中的疼痛方面更具优势(会阴神经阻滞组平均评分为2.80,前列腺周围阻滞组为3.98;调整后的均值差异为-1.17,P<0.001)。尽管与前列腺周围阻滞相比,会阴神经阻滞在活检后1小时的平均疼痛评分较低(0.23对0.43,P=0.042),但在6小时(0.16对0.25,P=0.389)和24小时(0.10对0.26,P=0.184)时两者相当。在活检过程中生命体征的变化方面,会阴神经阻滞在收缩压最大值、平均动脉压最大值和心率最大值方面显著优于前列腺周围阻滞。收缩压平均值、平均压平均值、心率平均值、舒张压和呼吸频率方面无统计学差异。会阴神经阻滞在疼痛的外在表现(1.88对3.00,P<0.001)和麻醉满意度(8.93对11.90,P<0.001)方面也优于前列腺周围阻滞。PCa(会阴神经阻滞组为31.25%,前列腺周围阻滞组为29.17%,P=0.753)或临床显著前列腺癌(会阴神经阻滞组为$23.96%$,前列腺周围阻滞组为20.83%,P=0.604)的检出率显示相当。会阴神经阻滞组96例患者中有33例(34.8%)、前列腺周围阻滞组96例患者中有40例(41.67%)至少发生了一种并发症。
对于接受经会阴前列腺活检的男性患者,会阴神经阻滞在疼痛控制方面优于前列腺周围阻滞。
中国国家重点研发计划资助项目2019YFC0119100。