Freehand versus Grid-Based Transperineal Prostate Biopsy: A Comparison of Anatomical Region Yield and Complications

The freehand (FH) technique of transperineal prostate biopsy using commercialized needle access systems facilitates a reduction in anesthesia requirements from general to local or local/sedation. We sought to compare the efficacy and complication rates of the FH method with those of the standard grid-based (GB) method.

The GB method was performed from 2014 to 2018, and the updated FH technique was performed from 2018 to 2020, yielding comparative cohorts of 174 and 304, respectively.

The FH and GB techniques demonstrated equivalent yields of ≥Gleason grade group (GGG)-2 prostate cancer (PCa). The FH group had a significantly higher mean number of cores with ≥GGG-2 PCa involvement (p=0.011) but a significantly lower mean number of biopsy samples (p <0.01). The urinary retention rate of the GB group (10%) was significantly higher than that of the FH group (1%; p <0.01). The rates of ≥GGG-2 PCa involvement in the anterior (GB, 31%) and anteromedial (FH, 22%) sectors were higher than those in other sectors (range, 0%-9%). For multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, the rate of ≥GGG-2 PCa detection in the anteromedial prostate (23%) was nearly half that in other locations (range, 38%-55%).

Compared with GB transperineal biopsy, FH transperineal biopsy demonstrates an equivalent cancer yield with no risk of sepsis, a significantly reduced risk of urinary retention, and reduced anesthesia needs. The higher number of cores with ≥GGG-2 PCa involvement in the FH group suggests that FH transperineal biopsy can sample the prostate better than GB-transperineal biopsy can.