Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 4, 2026
Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Using a Cone-shaped Double-hole Method with Dual-plane Probe Guidance
Published on: June 6, 2025
Comparisons of cancer detection rate and complications between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy
Guan-Lin Huang1, Chih-Hsiung Kang1, Wei-Ching Lee1
1Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, No.123, Dapi Rd., Niaosong Dist., Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Background:
Prostate biopsy remains the gold standard approach to verify prostate cancer diagnosis. Transrectal (TR) biopsy is a regular modality, while transperineal (TP) biopsy is an alternative for the patients who display persistently high levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and thus have to undergo repeat biopsy. This study aimed to compare the cancer detection rates between TR and TP approaches and assess the post-bioptic complications of the two procedures. Besides, the feasibility of performing TP biopsies under local anesthesia was also evaluated.
Methods:
A total of 238 outpatient visits meeting the criteria for prostate cancer biopsy were enrolled for this study. They were divided into two groups: the TP group (n = 130) consists of patients destined to undergo local anesthetic TP biopsy; and the TR group (n = 108) contained those who received TR biopsy as comparison. Age, PSA level, digital rectal exam (DRE) finding, prostate volume, and biopsy core number were used as the parameters of the multivariable analyses. The comparable items included cancer detection rate, complication rate, admission rate and visual analog scale (VAS) score.
Results:
The cancer detection rates between TP and TR groups were quite comparable (45% v.s. 49%) (p = 0.492). However, the TP group, as compared to the TR group, had significantly lower incidence of infection-related complications (except epididymitis and prostatitis) that commonly occur after biopsies. None of the patients in the TP group were hospitalized due to the post-bioptic complications, whereas there was still a minor portion of those in the TR group (7.4%) requiring hospitalization after biopsy. Medians (25-75% quartiles) of visual analog scale (VAS) were 3 [3, 4] and 4 [3-5] respectively for the TP and TR procedures under local anesthesia, but no statistical significance existed between them (p = 0.085).
Conclusions:
Patients receiving TP biopsy are less likely to manifest infection-related complications. Therefore, TP biopsy is a more feasible local anesthetic approach for prostate cancer detection if there are concerns for infectious complications and/or the risk of general anesthesia.
