Assessment of complications after transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsy using a risk-stratified pathway identifying patients at risk for post-biopsy infections

References

• Grummet J, Gorin MA, Popert R, et al. "TREXIT 2020": why the time to abandon transrectal prostate biopsy starts now. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23(1):62–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer–2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):243–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pradere B, Veeratterapillay R, Dimitropoulos K, et al. Nonantibiotic strategies for the prevention of infectious complications following prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2021;205(3):653–663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilatz A, Dimitropoulos K, Veeratterapillay R, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of infectious complications following prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2020;204(2):224–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett HY, Roberts MJ, Doi SAR, et al. The global burden of major infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Epidemiol Infect. 2016;144(8):1784–1791.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry B, Parry MG, Sujenthiran A, et al. Comparison of complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population-based study. BJU Int. 2020;126(1):97–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamhankar AS, El-Taji O, Vasdev N, et al. The clinical and financial implications of a decade of prostate biopsies in the NHS: analysis of hospital episode statistics data 2008–2019. BJU Int. 2020;126(1):133–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, et al. Complications and adverse events of three magnetic resonance imaging-based target biopsy techniques in the diagnosis of prostate cancer among men with prior negative biopsies: results from the FUTURE trial, a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2(6):617–624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu YP, Li XD, Ke ZB, et al. Risk factors for infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Infect Drug Resist. 2018;11:1491–1497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danielsen L, Faizi G, Snitgaard S, et al. Infections after transrectal ultrasonic guided prostate biopsies – a retrospective study. Scand J Urol. 2019;53(2–3):97–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts MJ, Bennett HY, Harris PN, et al. Prostate biopsy-related infection: a systematic review of risk factors, prevention strategies, and management approaches. Urology. 2017;104:11–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding XF, Luan Y, Lu SM, et al. Risk factors for infection complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy. World J Urol. 2021;39(7):2463–2467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasanzadeh A, Black P, Pourmand MR, et al. Clinical and bacterial risk factors for development of post-prostate biopsy infections. Urol J. 2019;16(6):603–608.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tully KH, Bahlburg H, Berg S, et al. Changing the prostate cancer detection paradigm: clinical application of European Association of Urology guideline-recommended magnetic resonance imaging-based risk stratification in men with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7(5):1011–1018.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pereira-Azevedo N, Osorio L, Fraga A, et al. Rotterdam prostate cancer risk calculator: development and usability testing of the mobile phone app. JMIR Cancer. 2017;3(1):e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gayet M, Mannaerts CK, Nieboer D, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer: external validation of the ERSPC risk calculator in a contemporary Dutch Clinical Cohort. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(2):228–234.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Olivier J, Konety B, Hayne D. TREXIT Is now: should we abandon the transrectal route for biopsy? A three-continent debate-No. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021;31:12–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pepdjonovic L, Tan GH, Huang S, et al. Zero hospital admissions for infection after 577 transperineal prostate biopsies using single-dose cephazolin prophylaxis. World J Urol. 2017;35(8):1199–1203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorin MA, Meyer AR, Zimmerman M, et al. Transperineal prostate biopsy with cognitive magnetic resonance imaging/biplanar ultrasound fusion: description of technique and early results. World J Urol. 2020;38(8):1943–1949.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefanova V, Buckley R, Flax S, Collaborators, et al. Transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia: experience with 1,287 patients. Prostate cancer detection rate, complications and patient tolerability. J Urol. 2019;201(6):1121–1126.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Szabo RJ. "Free-hand" transperineal prostate biopsy under local anesthesia: review of the literature. J Endourol. 2021;35(4):525–543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhanji Y, Allaway MJ, Gorin MA. Recent advances and current role of transperineal prostate biopsy. Urol Clin North Am. 2021;48(1):25–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth H, Millar JL, Cheng AC, et al. The state of TRUS biopsy sepsis: readmissions to victorian hospitals with TRUS biopsy-related infection over 5 years. BJU Int. 2015;116(Suppl 3):49–53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gross MD, Alshak MN, Shoag JE, et al. Healthcare costs of post-prostate biopsy sepsis. Urology. 2019;133:11–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basourakos SP, Alshak MN, Lewicki PJ, et al. Role of prophylactic antibiotics in transperineal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;37:53–63.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar