Complications of Trans-Rectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Single-Centre Experience from Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51985/Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the frequency, severity, and types of complications associated with TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in patients at the Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT) over an 18-month period.
Study Design and Setting: This observational study included 302 male patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy between January 2023 and June 2024.
Methodology: Pain severity was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Complications such as haematuria, urinary tract infections, hematospermia, rectal bleeding, acute urinary retention, and epididymo-orchitis were documented. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis.
Results: Acute urinary retention (6,2%) , urinary tract infection (6.2%) , visible haematuria (8.5%)and probe-related pain (VAS 9= 11.8%) were observed in patient underwent TRUS-guided biopsy. Hematospermia and epididymo-orchitis were seen in 10.2% and 15.8% of cases. Rectal bleeding was least common (3.3%).
Conclusion: TRUS-guided prostate biopsy is associated with significant procedural discomfort and a notable incidence of post-procedure complications. Enhanced pain management protocols and infection prevention strategies are essential to improve patient outcomes and procedural safety.
Keywords: Trans rectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy, Infection, Acute urinary retention
References
1. Bennett HY, Roberts MJ, Doi SAR, Gardiner RA. The global
burden of prostate cancer: current and emerging trends.
Prostate Int. 2021;9(2):65–69. doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2021.04.0042. Raaijmakers R, Kirkels WJ, Roobol MJ, et al. Complication
rates and risk factors of 5802 transrectal ultrasound-guided
prostate biopsies: a prospective study. J Urol. 2020;204(1):
120–125. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000812
3. Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, et al. Complications after
systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur
Urol. 2020;77(1):18–30. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.006
4. Ekwueme K, Simpson H, Zilvetti M, et al. Pain and infection
rates after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a
prospective study. BJU Int. 2021;127(6):676–682. doi:10.1111/
bju.15254
5. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review
of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2021;80(3):
345–353. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.05.009
6. Kehinde EO, Al-Maghrebi M, Al-Hunayan A, et al. Antibiotic
resistance and prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy:
2020 update. Arab J Urol. 2021;19(2):130–139. doi:10.1080/
2090598X.2021.1880110
7. Chiang PH, Liu SP, Chien KY, et al. Comparison of
fluoroquinolone vs cephalosporin prophylaxis for prostate
biopsy: a multicenter study. BMC Infect Dis. 2022;22(1):77.
doi:10.1186/s12879-022-07021-2
8. Wagenlehner FME, van Oostrum E, Tenke P, et al. Infective
complications after prostate biopsy: evaluation of risk factors.
World J Urol. 2020;38(1):135–143. doi:10.1007/s00345-019-
02718-z
9. Lee J, Kim JH, Choi SH, et al. Predictors of acute urinary
retention after prostate biopsy. Prostate Int. 2021;9(4):181–186.
doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2021.07.002
10. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, et al. Complications after
prostate biopsy: data from the Prostate Cancer Prevention
Trial. J Urol. 2020;203(2):313–317. doi:10.1097/JU.
0000000000000524
11. De Nunzio C, Lombardo R, Leonardo C, et al. Erectile
dysfunction after prostate biopsy: clinical relevance and
associated factors. World J Urol. 2021;39(2):491–497.
doi:10.1007/s00345-020-03156-1
12. Müller A, Lehmann K, Weber A, et al. Fournier's gangrene
after prostate biopsy: a rare complication. Case Rep Urol.
2022; 2022:9832916. doi:10.1155/2022/9832916
13. Shifa W, Shohab D, Khawaja MA, Masood A, Iqbal MW,
Akhter S. Outcome of trans-rectal ultrasound guided twelvecore biopsy of prostate for detection of prostate cancer: a
single-centre experience. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad.
2021;33(3): XXX–XXX. doi:10.29309/TPMJ/2021.28.02.4779
14. Xiang S, Wang X, Liu Y, et al. A systematic comparison of
transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: which is
better? Front Surg. 2020; 7:583177. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2020.
583177
15. Alfano A, Paoli G, Martini A, et al. Complication Rates After
TRUS Guided Transrectal Prostate Biopsy. Front Surg. 2020;
7:7. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2020.00007
16. Ekwueme OC, et al. Complications following TRUS-guided
prostate biopsy: narrative review. J Clin Med. 2023;13(2):487.
doi:10.3390/jcm13020487
17. Comparative meta-analysis: TP vs TR complications show
lower rectal bleeding, fever, and retention with TP biopsy.
Transl Androl Urol. 2025;14(3):150. doi:10.21037/tau-2025-
150
18. Galenos J Urol Surg. Targeted antibiotic prophylaxis using
rectal swabs reduces post-biopsy infections. J Urol Surg.
2023;6(6):186-92. doi: 10.52338/jus.galenos.2023.6.6
19. World J Urol. Role of alpha-blockers in reducing urinary
retention post-biopsy. 2024; ahead-of-print. doi:10.1007/
s00345-024-05001-5
20. Thompson et al. Prospective evaluation of trans-rectal biopsy
impact on LUTS and QoL. African J Urol. 2020;26(1):62.
doi:10.1186/s12301-020-00062-5
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Journal of Bahria University Medical & Dental College is an open access journal and is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. which permits unrestricted non commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
