The Effect of Rectal Foley Catheterization on Rectal Bleeding Rates after Transrectal Ultrasound–guided Prostate Biopsy

• Published in: Journal of vascular and interventional radiology Vol. 19; no. 9; pp. 1344 - 1346
• Main Authors: Kilciler, Mete, MD, Erdemir, Fikret, MD, Demir, Erkan, MD, Güven, Oğuz, MD, Avcı, Ali, MD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.09.2008
• Subjects: Catheterization - statistics & numerical data; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage - epidemiology; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage - prevention & control; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Prostate - pathology; Radiology; Rectal Diseases - epidemiology; Rectal Diseases - prevention & control; Risk Assessment - methods; Risk Factors; Surgery, Computer-Assisted - statistics & numerical data; Turkey - epidemiology; Turkey; transrectal ultrasound; TRUS
• ISSN: 1051-0443; 1535-7732
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2008.06.005

Purpose To assess whether Foley catheterization of the rectum after transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy decreases complication rates. Materials and Methods Between June 2000 and September 2006, 275 consecutive patients were evaluated after undergoing TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. All procedures were performed on an outpatient basis. Patients were divided into two groups. In the first group ( n = 134), a Foley catheter was inserted into the rectum and inflated to 50 cm3 after TRUS-guided biopsy. In the second group ( n = 141), catheterization was performed without balloon placement. Rectal bleeding, hematuria, hematospermia, infection, and acute urinary retention rates were compared between groups. Results The mean ages of the patients were 63.3 years ± 5.6 and 62.1 years ± 7.2 years in the Foley catheter group and control group, respectively ( P = .112). Hematuria, hematospermia, infection, and rectal bleeding occurred in 31 (23.1%), 30 (22.4), nine (6.7%), and two patients (1.5%), respectively, in the Foley catheter group; and in 36 (25.5%), 36 (25.5%), 11 (7.8%), and 25 patients (17.7%), respectively, in the control group. The incidences of infection, hematuria, and hematospermia were not significantly different between groups ( P > .05). In contrast, the rectal bleeding rate was significantly lower in the Foley catheter group (1.5%) than in the control group (17.7%; P = .001). Conclusions Although it has no effect on other complications, TRUS-guided prostate biopsy with rectal Foley catheterization is a useful, practical method to decrease or prevent rectal bleeding.