A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Clinical comparison of the efficacy of three different bowel preparation methods on the infectious complications following transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy in nursing practice. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Aims And Objectives: To assess the effects of three different bowel preparation methods on the incidence of infectious complications in patients who underwent transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy.

Background: The standard bowel preparation protocol for prostate biopsy has not been established.

Design: A retrospective study in a single centre.

Methods: From January 2013-December 2015, the clinical records of 1,130 patients who underwent prostate biopsy were, respectively, reviewed. All the patients received metronidazole prophylaxis before biopsy. The patients were divided into three groups according to the bowel preparation methods: patients in Group A (n = 402) received only soapy enema; patients in Group B (n = 413) received polyethylene glycol; while patients in Group C (n = 315) received polyethylene glycol plus povidone-iodine enema. Infectious complications were classified as fever (>37.5°C), urinary tract infection and sepsis. The postoperative adverse events were also observed.

Results: The overall postbiopsy infectious complications were observed in 48 (4.25%) patients of all the cases, including 23 (5.72%) cases in Group A, 20 (4.84%) cases in Group B and five patients (1.59%) in Group C. There was significant difference among the groups (p = .018). In detail, these infectious complications included 22 (1.95%) cases of fever and 26 (2.30%) cases of urinary tract infection. No sepsis was observed among the total patients. The incidence of adverse events was 14.43% (58/402) occurred in Group A, 25.91% (107/413) in Group B and 26.67% (84/315) in Group C. The difference was statistically significant.

Conclusions: Our study confirmed that combined preparation regimens of polyethylene glycol with povidone-iodine enema could significantly reduce the postbiopsy infection rate. Conventional soapy enema is associated with less adverse events.

Relevance To Clinical Practice: Findings of this study provide useful evidence-based information for healthcare professionals. The application of combined preparation regimens of polyethylene glycol with povidone-iodine enema resulted in better improvement in the prevention of postbiopsy infection.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13854DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

infectious complications
20
bowel preparation
16
polyethylene glycol
16
preparation methods
12
prostate biopsy
12
patients group
12
glycol povidone-iodine
12
povidone-iodine enema
12
patients
10
group
9

Similar Publications