Dergiler / Eurasian Journal of Medical Investigation / 2022 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

General Anesthesia versus Sedation in Multi Parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) Transrectal Ultrasound Guided (TRUS) Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective, Randomized Study

Sayfa
157–164
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The sedation approach, combined with careful monitoring of anesthesia depth, prevented hypoxemia, reduced anesthetic agent consumption, and allowed for faster recovery and discharge, allowing for ambulatory anesthesia.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objectives: Different anesthetic methods have been used in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging-guided (mpMRI) transrectal ultrasound guidance (TRUS) fusion-targeted prostate biopsy, but the consensus on the optimal anesthetic approach is not clear.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In this study, the anesthesia management, procedural conditions, intraoperative adverse events, complications, discharge criteria, and cancer detection rates of general anesthesia and sedation were compared.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The sedation approach, combined with careful monitoring of anesthesia depth, prevented hypoxemia, reduced anesthetic agent consumption, and allowed for faster recovery and discharge, allowing for ambulatory anesthesia.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objectives: Different anesthetic methods have been used in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging-guided (mpMRI) transrectal ultrasound guidance (TRUS) fusion-targeted prostate biopsy, but the consensus on the optimal anesthetic approach is not clear. In this study, the anesthesia management, procedural conditions, intraoperative adverse events, complications, discharge criteria, and cancer detection rates of general anesthesia and sedation were compared. Methods: Participants were randomly divided into general anesthesia (GA) and sedation (S) groups. The primary endpoint of the study was the surgical satisfaction score. The incidence of hypoxia, patient satisfaction, cancer detection rate, anesthetic agent consumption, recovery and hospitalization times, and complication rates were all compared as secondary outcomes. Results: There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypoxemia in both groups (Group G:0, Group S:2 patients, p=0.494). While there was no significant difference in surgical satisfaction scores (Group GA: 9.48 vs Group S: 9.23, p=0.353). PC detection rates (p=0.809) and complication rates were similar. Conclusion: With similar surgical conditions, complication incidence, and cancer detection rates, neither anesthesia approach did not provide surgical superiority over the other. The sedation approach, combined with careful monitoring of anesthesia depth, prevented hypoxemia, reduced anesthetic agent consumption, and allowed for faster recovery and discharge, allowing for ambulatory anesthesia.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KOÇ, S., UYSAL, H. (2022). General Anesthesia versus Sedation in Multi Parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) Transrectal Ultrasound Guided (TRUS) Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective, Randomized Study. Eurasian Journal of Medical Investigation, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 157–164. https://ajindex.com/articles/508525

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. WHO. Cancer Fact Sheet. Available at: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/ data/factsheets/populations/900-world-fact-sheets.pdf. Accessed Mar 22, 2022
  2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:7–33
  3. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative ıntent. Eur Urol 2017;71:618–29
  4. Lughezzani G, Saita A, Lazzeri M, Paciotti M, Maffei D, Lista G, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. European Urol Oncol 2019;2:329–32
  5. Lemaître L, Villers A, Mouton D, Puech P. Transrectal ultrasound and biopsy of the prostate. J Radiol 2006;87:201–9
  6. Ward AD, Crukley C, McKenzie CA, Montreuil J, Gibson E, Romagnoli C, et al. Prostate: registration of digital histopathologic images to in vivo MR images acquired by using endorectal receive coil. Radiology 2012;263:856–64
  7. Clements R, Aideyan OU, Griffiths GJ, Peeling WB. Side effects and patient acceptability of transrectal biopsy of the prostate. Clin Radiol 1993;47:125–6
  8. Anup K, Pawan V, Niraj K, Biswajit N, Nayan MK. A prospective randomized trial comparing three different analgesic techniques for pain control during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a single center experience. Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2013;65:77–82
  9. Kucur M, Goktas S, Kaynar M, Apiliogullari S, Kilic O, Akand M, et al. Selective low-dose spinal anesthesia for transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective and randomized study. J Endourol 2015;29:1412–7
  10. Maccagnano C, Scattoni V, Roscigno M, Raber M, Angiolilli D, Montorsi F, et al. Anaesthesia in transrectal prostate biopsy: which is the most effective technique? Urol Int 2011;87:1–13
  11. Kang SG, Tae BS, Min SH, Ko YH, Kang SH, Lee JG, et al. Efficacy and cost analysis of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy under monitored anesthesia. Asian J Androl 2011;13:724–7
  12. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet (London, England) 2017;389:815–22
  13. Altok M, Kim B, Patel BB, Shih YT, Ward JF, McRae SE, et al. Cost and efficacy comparison of five prostate b