Results of patient feedback questionnaire following transperineal template guided saturation biopsy (TPSB) without prophylactic catheterisation. Introduction and Objective: TPSB is increasingly utilised in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer. However, there is little data on patient experience after undergoing this procedure. We circulated a questionnaire to 511 consecutive patients from July 2007 to December 2014 and now analyse the responses. Materials and Methods: The mean age for the cohort was 64 (range 43-82). A mean of 28 biopsy cores (range 13-43) were taken under general anaesthesia (GA), as day case procedure. Patients received diclofenac 100 mg suppository on completion of the procedure. The questionnaire explored symptoms at 1 h, 1, 3 and 7 days postoperatively. Results: There were 301 responses (59%). Following TPSB, 38% initially experienced rectal bleeding, falling significantly to 3% on day 7 (p < 0.001) and it was not a serious condition in all cases. A majority reported haematuria at 1 h but persisting at 1 week in over one quarter (p < 0.001). Nevertheless, although initially often dark, none had other than pale pink by the end of the reporting period. In contrast, the incidence of haematospermia increased over 7 days, rising significantly to 38% by this stage (p < 0.001). Several patients commented that the procedure was more tolerable than their previous conventional TRUS biopsy and 20 (6.6%) with voiding difficulty required catheterisation. In all, 23% patients felt pain, and out of these 23% only 5% required minor analgesia at day 7. Conclusion: TPSB under GA without prophylactic catheterisation is well tolerated, carrying acceptable postoperative symptom rates. Interestingly, a significant proportion of patients ejaculate within 7 days, which again suggests good tolerance to the procedure. Patients should be provided with this data preoperatively when they are considering TPSB.

Keywords:
Saturation biopsy, Prostate cancer, Catheterisation or not
1.
Applewhite JC, Matlaga BR, McCullough DL: Results of the 5 region prostate biopsy method: the repeat biopsy population. J Urol 2002;168:500-503.
2.
Igel TC, Knight MK, Young PR, Wehle MJ, Petrou SP, Broderick GA, et al: Systematic transperineal ultrasound examination of the prostate: complications and acceptance by patients. BJU Int 2001;71:457-459.
3.
Jones SJ: Saturation biopsy for detection and characterisation of prostate cancer; Jones SJ (ed): Chapter 16: Prostate Biopsy. Humana Press, 2008.
4.
Fumadó L, Cecchini L, Juanpere N, Ubré A, Lorente JA, Alcaraz A: Twelve core template prostate biopsy is an unreliable tool to select patients eligible for focal therapy. Urol Int 2015;95:197-202.
5.
Ekwueme K, Simpson H, Zakhour H, Parr NJ: Transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy using a modified technique: outcome of 270 cases requiring repeat prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2013;111:E365-E373.
6.
Pepe P, Dibenedetto G, Pennisi M, Fraggetta F, Colecchia M, Aragona F: Detection rate of anterior prostate cancer in 226 patients submitted to initial and repeat transperineal biopsy. Urol Int 2014;93:189-192.
7.
Chen ME, Johnston DA, Tang K, Babaian RJ, Troncoso P: Detailed mapping of prostate carcinoma foci: biopsy strategy implications. Cancer 2000;89:1800-1809.
8.
Zaytoun OM, Vargo EH, Rajan R, Berglund R, Gordon S, Jones JS: Emergence of fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli as cause of postprostate biopsy infection: implications for prophylaxis and treatment. Urology 2011;77:1035-1041.
9.
Carmignani L, Picozzi S, Spinelli M, Di Pierro S, Mombelli G, Negri E, et al: Bacterial sepsis following prostatic biopsy. Int Urol Nephrol 2012;44:1055-1063.
10.
Pepe P, Aragona F: Morbidity after transperineal prostate biopsy in 3000 patients undergoing 12 vs 18 vs more than 24 needle cores. Urology 2013;81:1142-1146.
11.
Merrick GS, Taubenslag W, Andreini H, Brammer S, Butler WM, Adamovich E, et al: The morbidity of transperineal template-guided prostate mapping biopsy. BJU Int 2008;101:1524-1529.
12.
Pinkstaff DM, Igel TC, Petrou SP, Broderick GA, Wehle MJ, Young PR: Systematic transperineal ultrasound-guided template biopsy of the prostate: three-year experience. Urology 2005;65:735-739.
13.
Satoh T, Matsumoto K, Fujita T, Tabata K, Okusa H, Tsuboi T, et al: Cancer core distribution in patients diagnosed by extended transperineal prostate biopsy. Urology 2005;66:114-118.
14.
Demura T, Hioka T, Furuno T, et al: Differences in tumor core distribution between palpable and nonpalpable prostate tumors in patients diagnosed using extensive transperineal ultrasound-guided template prostate biopsy. Cancer 2005;103:1826-1832.
15.
Bott SR, Henderson A, Halls JE, Montgomery BS, Laing R, Langley SE: Extensive transperineal template biopsies of prostate: modified technique and results. Urology 2006;68:1037-1041.
16.
Moran BJ, Braccioforte MH, Conterato DJ: Re-biopsy of the prostate using a stereotactic transperineal technique. J Urol 2006;176(4 pt 1):1376-1381; discussion 1381.
17.
Barzell WE, Melamed MR: Appropriate patient selection in the focal treatment of prostate cancer: the role of transperineal 3-dimensional pathologic mapping of the prostate - a 4-year experience. Urology 2007;70(6 suppl):27-35.
18.
Li H, Yan W, Zhou Y, Ji Z, Chen J: Transperineal ultrasound-guided saturation biopsies using 11-region template of prostate: report of 303 cases. Urology 2007;70:1157-1161.
19.
Merrick GS, Gutman S, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, Lindert DL, Curtis R, et al: Prostate cancer distribution in patients diagnosed by transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy. Eur Urol 2007;52:715-723.
20.
Warren FC, Abel G, Lyratzopoulos G, Elliott MN, Richards S, Barry HE, et al: Characteristics of service users and provider organisations associated with experience of out of hours general practitioner care in England: population based cross sectional postal questionnaire survey. BMJ 2015;350:h2040.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.