A prospective study of transperineal prostatic block for transurethral needle ablation for benign prostatic hyperplasia: The Emory University experience
Mm. Issa et al., A prospective study of transperineal prostatic block for transurethral needle ablation for benign prostatic hyperplasia: The Emory University experience, J UROL, 162(5), 1999, pp. 1636-1639
Purpose: We evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness and role of transperine
al prostate block in providing anesthesia during minimally invasive radio f
requency thermal therapy of the prostate.
Materials and Methods: A total of 38 consecutive patients undergoing transu
rethral needle ablation for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia were e
ntered in this prospective study. All patients received transperineal prost
atic block as the main method of anesthesia. A mixture of equal volumes of
1% lidocaine and 0.25% bupivacaine, each with epinephrine (1:100,000 concen
tration ratio) was used. Pain control during the instillation of transperin
eal prostatic block and transurethral needle ablation was assessed using a
10-point linear analog pain scale and questionnaire.
Results: Median patient age was 65.5 years (range 47 to 79), with 21% of me
n in the eighth decade of life. Median American Urological Association symp
tom score was 25.0 (range 14 to 35), bother score was 20.0 (11 to 28), qual
ity of life score was 4.0 (3 to 6) and peak urinary flow rate was 8.9 cc pe
r second (3.5 to 15.7). Median sonographic prostate volume was 35.0 cc (ran
ge 17 to 129). Median volume of anesthetic agent used was 40.0 cc (range 30
to 60) per case (1.1 cc solution per 1 cc prostate tissue). No adverse eve
nts were encountered. Median pain score was 3.3 (range 1 to 6) during insti
llation of transperineal prostatic block and 1.0 (0 to 6) during transureth
ral needle ablation. Transperineal prostatic block proved highly effective
and was a satisfactory method of anesthesia during transurethral needle abl
ation as judged by postoperative questionnaire. No sedation, narcotic or an
algesia was required. All procedures were performed in the outpatient cysto
scopy suite or office setting without support of an anesthesia team or cons
cious sedation monitoring.
Conclusions: Transperineal prostatic block is a safe, convenient, effective
and satisfactory method of minimally invasive anesthesia for transurethral
needle ablation of the prostate in an outpatient office setting. Elderly p
atients and those at high surgical risk can be treated safely using this ap
proach. Considerable cost saving is seen secondary to omission of charges r
elated to anesthesia team support, recovery room facility and conscious sed
ation monitoring.