IB-DMD(INNOBIOSCIENCE)

To evaluate different analgesic techniques in MRI-guided in-bore prostate biopsy (IB-GB) regarding the influence on patient procedural experience of pain.

Two hundred fifty-two consecutive patients who had received an IB-GB either with intrarectal instillation of 2% lidocaine gel (n = 126, group A) or with periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) with 2% mepivacaine (n = 126, group B) were retrospectively included in this study. Pain scores were measured on a visual analog scale, the operating room time (ORT) was recorded for each biopsy and correlations between the parameters were analysed.

Pain scores for IB-GB were slightly lower in group B compared with group A (2.0 ± 1.9; 2.4 ± 1.7; p = 0.02). In group A, significantly more targeted biopsy cores were acquired (group B: 5.2 ± 1.1; group A: 5.6 ± 0.8; p < 0.01). ORT was comparable and not significantly different in both groups. There was only a weak correlation between pain scores and ORT in group B (r_S = 0.22; p = 0.01), but no correlation between pain scores and the number of biopsy cores or the prostate volume.

Pain levels are generally low for MRI-guided in-bore biopsy using either PPNB or intrarectal instillation of lidocaine gel. A statistically significant, slightly lower pain score was documented for PPNB and might be preferred when the focus is analgesia. On the other hand, due to the minor difference and easier administration, intrarectal gel instillation seems to be a reasonable practice for standard analgesia for MRI-guided in-bore biopsy.

• Pain levels were low for MRI-guided in-bore biopsy using either PPNB or intrarectal instillation of lidocaine gel as analgesic method. • PPNB prior to IB-GB resulted in a slightly lower pain score but required a higher effort. • Intrarectal gel anaesthesia seems to be a reasonable practice for standard analgesia for IB-GB in an outpatient setting.

In this issue of Bone Marrow Transplantation, Kurita et al.1 describe the results of a prospective phase I/II trial of intra-bone single unit cord blood transplant (IB-CBT) in 15 patients with hematologic malignancies. Clinical outcomes were compared with 150 matched pair historic controls that received intravenous cord blood transplants (IV-CBT). Although time to neutrophil engraftment was similar between cohorts, platelet recovery occurred significantly earlier in the IB-CBT group. Other outcomes such as non-relapse mortality, relapse, survival and GvHD incidence were similar.