IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i13-14p2583-2589.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Xin‐hong Zhang
  • Yong Jia
  • Wei‐hua Guo
  • Yu‐rong Ma
  • Jing Yang
  • Yu Zhang
  • Si‐chuan Hou
  • Chang‐cun Zhang

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Xin‐hong Zhang & Yong Jia & Wei‐hua Guo & Yu‐rong Ma & Jing Yang & Yu Zhang & Si‐chuan Hou & Chang‐cun Zhang, 2018. "Clinical comparison of the efficacy of three different bowel preparation methods on the infectious complications following transrectal ultrasonography‐guided prostate biopsy in nursing practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(13-14), pages 2583-2589, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:13-14:p:2583-2589
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13854
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13854
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13854?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:13-14:p:2583-2589. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.