SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.30 número2Cáncer de próstata hormonorresistente: Cambios en las estrategias terapéuticas desde la demostración de la utilidad de la quimioterapiaCáncer renal incidental en pacientes de edad geriátrica: hallazgos clínicos e histopatológicos índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


Actas Urológicas Españolas

versión impresa ISSN 0210-4806

Resumen

CONDE REDONDO, C. et al. Trus-guided biopsy: comparison of two anesthetic methods. Actas Urol Esp [online]. 2006, vol.30, n.2, pp.134-138. ISSN 0210-4806.

Purpose: The aim of the present study is to compare two analgesic techniques for ultrasound transrectal biopsy. Oral analgesia vs periprosthetic nerve blockade with 2 % mevicaine. Patients and methods: A total of 200 patients were randomized prospectively into 2 groups, namely group I: 100 patients treated with metamizol, oral morphine 30 minutes before the procedure, and group II: 100 patients anesthesied with periprosthetic nerve blockade with 2% mepivacaine. Both groups were treated with bromacepán 3 mg 30 minutes before the biopsy. The first intention was to obtain 10 core TRUS-guided biopsy in all patients underwent. After the procedure, a ten visual analogue pain score (VAS) from 0 = no discomfort to 10 = severe pain was administered to the biopsied patients and a global estimation of pain associated with the procedure was obtained. Test T de Student was used for statistical analysis. Results: There were no significant differences in age, PSA and prostate volume. 3 core TRUS-guided biopsy were obtain in group I (3±1,3), and 10 in group II (5±1,2) In the periprosthetic block group (II) 95% of patients referred no pain after the procedure (VAS = 0), 2% middle pain (VAS=5-6) and 3% strong pain (VAS=7-8); while patients in group I referred 12,5% no pain , 42,4% middle pain, 20% strong pain. The level of pain reported by this group of patients was significantly different from those reported by patients who performed prostate biopsy with periprosthetic nerve blockade. (p<0.05). There were no significant differences in major complications. Conclusions: The use of bilateral periprosthetic block with mepivacaine is a very effective and useful technique, well tolerated by the patient, which almost completely abolishes the pain and discomfort associated with the prostate biopsy procedure. And also allows increase the number of cores.

Palabras clave : Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Anaesthesia.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Español     · Español ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License Todo el contenido de esta revista, excepto dónde está identificado, está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons