povidone-iodine and Prostatitis

povidone-iodine has been researched along with Prostatitis* in 2 studies

Other Studies

2 other study(ies) available for povidone-iodine and Prostatitis

ArticleYear
Comparison of Different Rectal Cleansing Methods for Reducing Post-Procedural Infectious Complications After Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy.
    Urology journal, 2020, 01-26, Volume: 17, Issue:1

    To compare the efficacy of three different rectal cleansing methods for reducing post-procedural infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy.. A total of 451 consecutive patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy were prospectively included in this study. All patients received targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis and underwent bowel preparation through laxative administration. The patients were divided into three groups on the basis of the method of rectal cleansing immediately before the procedure. Group I patients (n=165) underwent cleansing of the perianal skin using povidone-iodine cotton balls; group II patients (n=116) received an injection of povidone-iodine solution (0.1 g/mL) into the anal and lower rectal canals; and group III patients (n=170) received direct manual cleansing of the mucosal surface of the anus and lower rectum using povidone-iodine cotton balls. The three groups were compared regarding the incidence of post-procedural infectious complications, re-hospitalization rates, and mean length of hospital stay using one-way ANOVA, the Chi-square test, and multiple logistic regression analysis.. Post-procedural infectious complications occurred in 21.8%, 11.2%, and 6.5% of groups I, II, and III, respectively (P < .001). The incidence of overall infectious complications was significantly lower in group II (95% CI: 0.232-0.958, OR = 0.472, P = .038) and group III (95% CI: 0.129-0.555, OR = 0.267, P < .001) than in group I. Re-hospitalization rates were 9.7%, 2.6%, and 0.6% in groups I, II, and III, respectively (P < .001). The incidence of re-hospitalization was significantly lower in group II (95% CI: 0.070-0.869, OR = 0.247, P = .029) and group III (95% CI: 0.007-0.421, OR = 0.055, P = .005) than in group I. The mean length of hospital stay was significantly longer in group I than in group III (P = .009).. Combined with targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis, direct manual cleansing of the mucosal surface of the anus and lower rectum using povidone-iodine cotton balls was most effective in preventing post-procedural infectious complications among the three different rectal cleansing methods.

    Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Topical; Aged; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bacteriuria; Humans; Image-Guided Biopsy; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Readmission; Postoperative Complications; Povidone-Iodine; Prostate; Prostatitis; Pyuria; Rectum; Therapeutic Irrigation; Ultrasonography

2020
Povidone-iodine rectal cleansing and targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis using rectal swab cultures in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy are associated with reduced incidence of postoperative infectious complications.
    International urology and nephrology, 2016, Volume: 48, Issue:11

    The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of povidone-iodine rectal disinfection and targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy based on rectal swab culture results.. From January 2011 to December 2015, we studied differences in infectious complications in men who received povidone-iodine rectal disinfection with targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis and those who received empirical prophylaxis before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Clinical variables including demographics, prior antibiotic, rectal swab culture results, povidone-iodine rectal cleansing, antibiotic prophylaxis, and infectious complications were evaluated. Patients were divided into three groups as follows: Group A received no povidone-iodine rectal cleansing but received empirical antimicrobial prophylaxis; group B received povidone-iodine rectal cleansing and empirical antimicrobial prophylaxis; and group C received povidone-iodine rectal cleansing and targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis.. Patients were divided into group A (n = 192; 13.2 %), group B (n = 579; 39.9 %), or group C (n = 679; 46.8 %). In groups A and B, all patients received fluoroquinolone antimicrobial prophylaxis. Group C patients received targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis according to antibiotic resistance of rectal flora, and 71.1 % of these received fluoroquinolone antimicrobial prophylaxis. Infectious complication rates were 3.6, 2.9, and 1.3 % in group A, group B, and group C, respectively. Incidences of acute prostatitis and bacteremia were significantly lower in group C (p = 0.041 and p = 0.049, respectively) than in the other groups.. In the era of quinolone resistance, the combination of povidone-iodine rectal cleansing and targeted antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce the rate of infectious complications.

    Topics: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bacterial Infections; Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Male; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Povidone-Iodine; Prostate; Prostatitis; Rectum

2016