Original articleOutcome analysis of transrectal ultrasonography guided aspiration versus transurethral resection of prostatic abscess: 10Â years' experience from a tertiary care hospital

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of two minimally invasive methods (transrectal aspiration vs transurethral resection (TUR)/deroofing) of treating prostatic abscess.Patients and methodsA retrospective study was conducted, from 2007 to 2016, of patients with prostatic abscesses not responding to antibiotics and/or with large (>2 cm) or multiple abscesses. Patients were divided into two groups depending on treatment received: Group A, transrectal aspiration; and Group B, TUR/deroofing of abscess.ResultsThe most common clinical presentation was dysuria (81.8%), followed by urinary frequency (68.2%), and fever (36.4%). Acute urinary retention occurred in seven patients. The most common infective organism in both groups was Escherichia coli (43.9%). The mean (SD, range) prostate volume was 36 (6.4, 17-68) mL and 37 (7.3, 21-72) mL in Groups A and B, respectively. The mean (SD, range) volume of the abscess was 51.24 (12.6, 21-215) mL and 48.34 (15.4, 15-240) mL in Groups A and B, respectively. Overall, 37 (84.1%) patients responded to treatment (68.4% in Group A and 96.0% in Group B, P < 0.23) after the first treatment session. Six patients in Group A and one patient in Group B had recurrence of abscess (P < 0.03). Of the six patients in Group A with recurrence, four patients had complete resolution after repeat aspiration (average 1-3 times). The mean (SD) follow-up duration was 17.25 (6.3) months.ConclusionTUR of prostatic abscess is more effective (96%) than transrectal aspiration with a lesser hospital stay. However, transrectal aspiration was successful in 89% of cases, is less invasive and can be performed under local anaesthesia and or sedation.