The comparison of the influence between two different bowel preparation methods on sepsis after prostate biopsies

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridYILDIRIM, MEHMET/0000-0003-4768-4537
dc.contributor.authorYildirim, Mehmet Erol
dc.contributor.authorBadem, Huseyin
dc.contributor.authorCavis, Mucahit
dc.contributor.authorKaratas, Omer Faruk
dc.contributor.authorCimentepe, Ersin
dc.contributor.authorUnal, Dogan
dc.contributor.authorIncebay, Ilkay Bekir
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-24T18:10:08Z
dc.date.available2025-10-24T18:10:08Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.departmentMalatya Turgut Özal Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractIntroduction Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) guided prostate needle biopsy has been performed to diagnose and stage prostate cancer for many years. There are many different bowel preparation protocols to diminish the infectious complications, but there is no standardized consensus among urologists. Therefore, we aimed to assess two different bowel preparation methods on the rate of infectious complications in patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Material and methods A total of 387 cases of TRUS-guided prostate biopsy were included in this retrospective study. All patients received antibiotic prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin (500 mg) twice a day orally for 7 days starting on the day before the biopsy. The patients were divided into two groups according to the bowel preparation method used. Patients (Group 1, n = 164) only received self-administrated phosphate enema) on the morning of the prostate biopsy. Other patients (Group 2, n = 223) received sennasoid a-b laxatives the night before the prostate biopsy. Infectious complications were classified as sepsis, fever (greater than 38 degrees C) without sepsis, and other clinical infections. Results Major complications developed in 14 cases (3.8%), including 3 cases (0.8%) of urinary retention, and 11 (3%) infectious complications, all of which were sepsis. There were 3 and 8 cases of urosepsis in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between both Groups regarding to the rates of urosepsis (p = 0.358). Conclusions Despite both methods of bowel preparation, sodium phosphate enema or sennasoid a-b calcium laxatives, before TRUS-guided prostate biopsy have similar effect on the rate of urosepsis, so both methods of bowel preparation can be safely used.
dc.identifier.doi10.5173/ceju.2015.01.424
dc.identifier.endpage94
dc.identifier.issn2080-4806
dc.identifier.issn2080-4873
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.pmid25914845
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84930738241
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3
dc.identifier.startpage91
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2015.01.424
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12899/3993
dc.identifier.volume68
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000362068300018
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/A
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherPolish Urological Assoc
dc.relation.ispartofCentral European Journal Of Urology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_20251023
dc.subjectprostate cancer; prostate biopsy; bowel preparation
dc.titleThe comparison of the influence between two different bowel preparation methods on sepsis after prostate biopsies
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu