Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Browse Articles Search Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 827
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 17

A comparison of pain control and complications using three different ways of anesthesia in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy

1 Department of Urology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 General Practitioner, Medical Researcher, Faculty of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mohammad Hossein Izadpanahi
Department of Urology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_639_17

Rights and Permissions

Background: We aim to compare the degree of pain control and complications in three types of anesthesia using periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) plus intrarectal local anesthesia (IRLA), low-dose spinal anesthesia, and intravenous (IV) sedation in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. Materials and Methods: In this clinical trial study, 106 patients were participated from December 2015 to December 2016 at Alzahra Hospital, Isfahan, Iran. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups to receive PPNB plus IRLA (n = 36), low-dose spinal anesthesia (n = 35) and IV sedation (n = 35) before TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Pain scores were recorded using a 10 point visual analog scale right after the biopsy was done. Early and late complications were assessed using a questionnaire after the procedure and in follow-up of patients. Results: Overall, the pain score in the low-dose spinal anesthesia group was significantly lower than PPNB plus IRLA and IV sedation groups (P < 0.001). The differences in pain scores between PPNB plus IRLA group and IV sedation group were not significant (P = 0.30). Urinary retraction and fever were significantly more frequent in low-dose spinal anesthesia and IV sedation, retrospectively (P = 0.04, P = 0.03). No significant difference in late complications was found among the groups. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that low-dose spinal anesthesia is superior to PPNB plus IRLA and IV sedation in terms of pain controlling and was associated with higher tolerance of the examination and patient comfort.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded53    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal