Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/86
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGrummet, Jeremyen
dc.contributor.authorLawrentschuk, Nathanen
dc.contributor.authorFrydenberg, Marken
dc.contributor.authorMoon, Danielen
dc.contributor.authorMurphy, Declanen
dc.contributor.otherWeerakoon, Maheshaen
dc.contributor.otherHuang, Seanen
dc.contributor.otherO'Reilly, Maryen
dc.date.accessioned2014-09-11T01:08:22Zen
dc.date.available2014-09-11T01:08:22Zen
dc.date.issued2014-09en
dc.identifier.citationBJU Int. 2014 Sep;114(3):384-8en
dc.identifier.issn1464-4096en
dc.identifier.issn1464-410Xen
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/86en
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of hospital re-admission for sepsis after transperineal (TP) biopsy using both local data and worldwide literature, as there is growing interest in TP biopsy as an alternative to transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy for patients undergoing repeat prostate biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pooled prospective databases on TP biopsy from multiple centres in Melbourne were queried for rates of re-admission for infection. A literature review of PubMed and Embase was also conducted using the search terms: 'prostate biopsy, fever, infection, sepsis, septicaemia and complications'. RESULTS: In all, 245 TP biopsies were performed (111 at Alfred Health, 92 at Epworth Healthcare, 38 at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, and four at other institutions). The rate of hospital re-admission for infection was zero. The literature review showed that the rate of sepsis after TRUS biopsy appears to be rising with increasing rates of multi-resistant bacteria found in rectal flora, and is as high as 5%. However, the rate of sepsis from published series of TP biopsy approached zero. CONCLUSIONS: Both local and international data suggest a negligible rate of sepsis with TP biopsy. This compares to a concerning rise in the rate of sepsis after TRUS biopsy due to the increasing prevalence of multi-resistant bacteria in rectal flora. Although TRUS biopsy is convenient, cheap and quick to perform, we think that TP biopsy should now be offered as an option, not only to patients undergoing repeat prostate biopsy, but to all patients in whom a prostate biopsy is indicated.en
dc.subjectInfectionen
dc.subjectProstateen
dc.subjectSepsisen
dc.subjectTransperineal Biopsyen
dc.subjectTransrectal Biopsyen
dc.subjectEpworth Healthcare, Melbourne, VIC, Australiaen
dc.subjectReadmission-
dc.subjectTransrectal Ultrasonography-
dc.subjectTRUS Biopsy-
dc.subjectTP Biopsy-
dc.titleSepsis and 'superbugs': should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy?en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/bju.12536en
dc.identifier.journaltitleBJU Internationalen
dc.description.pubmedurihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24612341en
dc.description.affiliatesAustralian Urology Associatesen
dc.description.affiliatesPeter MacCallum Cancer Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australiaen
dc.description.affiliatesCabrini Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australiaen
dc.description.affiliatesEastern Health Clinical School, Melbourne, VIC, Australiaen
dc.description.affiliatesMonash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australiaen
Appears in Collections:Cancer Services
Epworth Prostate Centre
UroRenal, Vascular

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.