You are here

Home » Content

Transrektal Ultrasonografi Kılavuzluğunda Prostat Biyopsisi İçin Pudental Sinir Bloğu, Supozituar Tenoksikam ve Rektal Lidokain Jel Anestezisinin Karşılaştırılması

Comparison of Pudendal Nerve Blockade, Tenoxicam Suppository and Rectal Lidocaine Gel Anesthesia for Transrectal Ultrasound- Guided Biopsy of the Prostate

Journal Name:

  • İnönü Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2009

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Aim: We assessed the safety and efficacy of three different local anesthesia methods (pudendal nerve blockade, tenoxicam suppository and rectal lidocaine gel) before transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy of the prostate in this study. Materials and Methods: In our prospective and controlled study, 136 consecutive patients were randomized into four groups: men in group 1 (n=41) received no anesthesia, group 2 (n=30) received intrarectal 10 cc 2% lidocaine gel 10 mins before biopsy, group 3 (n=31) received 20 mg tenoxicam suppository 30 mins before biopsy and pudendal nerve blockade was performed in group 4 (n=34) 10 mins before biopsy using 10 ml of 1% lidocaine. The patients were asked to grade the pain when TRUS probe was inserted and during the biopsy procedure using a 11-point linear visual analog scale (VAS) and their pain scores were noted. Results: There were statistically significant differences among four groups regarding the mean VAS scores during probe insertion (p=0.024) and biopsy (p=0.012). This significance was provided by the difference between the group 1 and 4 (p=0.015 for probe insertion and p=0.022 for biopsy with Tukey test). No statistically significant difference was found among the pain scores of group 1, 2 and, 3 during probe insertion and biopsy. Conclusions: Pudendal nerve blockade was effective in reducing pain both during the biopsy procedure and probe insertion, while suppository tenoxicam and rectal lidocaine gel had no significant anesthetic effect.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Amaç: Bu çalışmada transrektal ultrasonografi (TRUS)-kılavuzluğunda prostat biyopsisi öncesi kullanılan üç farklı lokal anestezi yönteminin (pudental sinir bloğu, supozituar tenoksikam ve intrarektal lidokain jel) etkinlik ve güvenilirliği araştırıldı. Materyal ve metot: Prospektif ve kontrollü olan çalışmamızda toplam 136 hasta 4 gruba randomize edildi; grup 1’deki (n=41) hastalara anestezi uygulanmadı, grup 2’deki (n=30) hastalara biyopsiden 10 dk önce intrarektal 10 cc %2’lik lidokain jel, grup 3’deki (n=31) hastalarabiyopsiden 30 dk önce 20 mg supozituar tenoksikam, grup 4’deki (n=34) hastalara biyopsiden 10 dk önce 10 ml %1’lik lidokain kulanılarak pudental sinir bloğu uygulandı. Vizüel analog skala (VAS) kullanılarak hastalardan prob girişi ve biyopsi sırasındaki ağrıyı derecelendirmeleri (0-10 puan) istendi. Bulgular: Prob girişi (p=0.024) ve biyopsi (p=0.012) sırasındaki ortalama VAS skorları incelendiğinde 4 grup arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark mevcuttu. Bu sonuç grup 1 ve 4 arasındaki farktan kaynaklanıyordu (Tukey testinde prob girişi sırasında p=0.015 ve biyopsi sırasında p=0.022). Grup 1, 2 ve 3 arasında prob girişi ve biyopsi sırasındaki ortalama VAS skorları bakımından istatistiksel olarak önemli fark yoktu. Sonuç: Pudental sinir bloğu prob girişi ve biyopsi sırasındaki ağrıyı azaltmada etkili olurken supozituar tenoksikam ve intrarektal lidokain jelin önemli anestetik etkisine rastlanmamıştır
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-transrektal-ultrasonografi-kilavuzlugunda-prostat-biyopsisi-icin-pudental-sinir-blogu-supozituar-tenoksikam-rektal-lidokain-jel-anestezisinin-karsilastirilmasi.pdf
  • 3
141-144
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Crundwell MC, Cooke PW, Wallace DM. Patients' tolerance of
transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy: an audit of 104
cases: BJU Int 1999; 83: 792–5.
2. Obek C, Ozkan B, Tunc B, Can G, Yalcin V, Solok V.
Comparison of 3 different methods of anesthesia before
transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized trial. J Urol
2004; 172: 502–5.
3. Issa MM, Bux S, Chun T, Petros JA, Labadia AJ, Anastasia K,
Miller LE, Marshall FF. A randomized prospective trial of
intrarectal lidocaine for pain control during transrectal prostate
biopsy: the Emory University experience. J Urol 2000; 164: 397–
9.
4. Adsan O, Inal G, Ozdoğan L, Kaygisiz O, Uğurlu O, Cetinkaya
M. Unilateral pudendal nerve blockade for relief of all pain
during transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Urology
2004; 64: 528–31.
5. Haq A, Patel HR, Habib MR, Donaldson PJ, Parry JR.
Diclofenac suppository analgesia for transrectal ultrasound
guided biopsies of the prostate: a double-blind, randomized
controlled trial. J Urol 2004; 171: 1489–91.
6. Olkkola KT, Brunetto AV, Mattila MJ. Pharmacokinetics of
oxicam nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents. Clin
Pharmacokinet 1994; 26: 107–20.
7. Inal G, Yazici S, Adsan O, Ozturk B, Kosan M, Cetinkaya M.
Effect of periprostatic nerve blockade before transrectal
ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy on patient comfort: a
randomized placebo controlled study. Int J Urol 2004; 11: 148–
51.
8. Irani J, Fournier F, Bon D, Gremmo E, Doré B, Aubert J.
Patient tolerance of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the
prostate. Br J Urol 1997; 79: 608–10.
9. Autorino R, De Sio M, Di Lorenzo G, Damiano R, Perdonà S,
Cindolo L, D'Armiento M. How to decrease pain during
transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a look at the
literature. J Urol 2005; 174: 2091–7.
10. Davis M, Sofer M, Kim SS, Soloway MS. The procedure of
transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a survey of
patient preparation and biopsy technique. J Urol 2002; 167: 566–
70.
11. Cevik I, Ozveri H, Dillioglugil O, Akdaş A. Lack of effect of
intrarectal lidocaine for pain control during transrectal prostate
biopsy: a randomized prospective study. Eur Urol 2002; 42: 217–
20.
12. Chang SS, Alberts G, Wells N, Smith JA Jr, Cookson MS.
Intrarectal lidocaine during transrectal prostate biopsy: results of
a prospective double-blind randomized trial. J Urol 2001; 166:
2178–80.
13. Schraffordt SE, Tjandra JJ, Eizenberg N, Dwyer PL. Anatomy of
the pudendal nerve and its terminal branches: a cadaver study.
ANZ J Surg 2004; 74: 23–6.
14. Gabrielli F, Cioffi U, Chiarelli M, Guttadauro A, De Simone M.
Hemorrhoidectomy with posterior perineal block: experience
with 400 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43: 809–12.
15. Dos Reis JM, Glina S, Da Silva MF, Furlan V. Penile prosthesis
surgery with the patient under local regional anesthesia. J Urol
1993; 150: 1179–81.
16. Rossier AB, Fam BA, Lee IY, Sarkarati M, Evans DA. Role of
striated and smooth muscle components in the urethral pressure
profile in traumatic neurogenic bladders: a neuropharmacological
and urodynamic study. Preliminary report. J Urol 1982; 128: 529–
35.
17. McDonald JS, Spigos DG. Computed tomography-guided
pudendal block for treatment of pelvic pain due to pudendal
neuropathy. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 306–9.
18. Kovacs P, Gruber H, Piegger J, Bodner G. New, simple,
ultrasound-guided infiltration of the pudendal nerve:
ultrasonographic technique. Dis Colon Rectum 2001; 44: 1381–5.
19. Choi SS, Lee PB, Kim YC, Kim HJ, Lee SC. C-arm-guided
pudendal nerve block: a new technique. Int J Clin Pract 2006; 60:
553–6.
20. Shafik A, el-Sherif M, Youssef A, Olfat ES. Surgical anatomy of
the pudendal nerve and its clinical implications. Clin Anat 1995;
8: 110–5.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com