Complications of transperineal prostate biopsy
Authors:
Kristína Maguthová; Petr Nencka; Jindřich Šonský; Petr Klézl; Robert Grill
Authors‘ workplace:
Urologická klinika 3. LF UK a FN Královské Vinohrady, Praha
Published in:
Ces Urol 2026; 30(3): 132-136
Category:
Original article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.48095/cccu2026015
Overview
Major statement: Transperineal biopsy is currently the preferred method for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Its lower incidence of infectious complications compared with the transrectal approach allows the procedure to be performed without routine antibiotic prophylaxis.
Aim: The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the incidence and spectrum of complications following transperineal prostate biopsies performed at our institution. Methods: Between April 2022 and April 2025, a total of 386 transperineal prostate biopsies were performed at our institution using magnetic resonance imaging – ultrasound fusion guidance. We evaluated the incidence and spectrum of complications following the procedure in this patient cohort. Complications were recorded during the follow-up visit after prostate biopsy, which was routinely performed at our institution approximately 14 days after the procedure. Results: In 321 cases, this was the first prostate biopsy, while 65 patients underwent repeated biopsy. A total of 366 biopsies were performed under local anesthesia and 20 under general anesthesia. Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered in ten cases. The mean age of patients in the cohort was 66 years. The mean number of biopsy cores obtained was nine, and the mean prostatic specific antigen level was 9 ng/mL. Overall complications following transperineal prostate biopsy were recorded in 23 cases. Infectious complications requiring antibiotic treatment occurred in four cases. The most common complication was hematospermia (8×), followed by hematuria (5×), urinary tract infection (4×), and urinary retention (3×). Dysuria, hip pain, urethrorrhagia, and combined urinary retention with urinary tract infection were each observed in one case. Conclusion: Transperineal prostate biopsy is associated with a minimal risk of infectious complications based on the evaluation of this cohort. According to our findings as well as the available literature, it is considered a safe method for the histological diagnosis of prostate cancer without the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis.
Keywords:
prostate cancer – transperineal prostate biopsy – complications of prostate biopsy – complications of transperineal prostate biopsy
Sources
1. Krejčí D, Mužík J, Šnábl I et al. Portál epidemiologie novotvarů v ČR – incidence zhoubného novotvaru prostaty (C61). Brno: Masaryk University 2024. [online]. Dostupné z: https://www.svod.cz/incidence.
2. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on prostate cancer: diagnostic evaluation. Arnhem (NL): EAU 2024. [online]. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer/chapter/diagnostic-evaluation.
3. European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer: classification and staging. Arnhem (NL): EAU 2024. [online]. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer/chapter/classification-and-staging.
4. Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G et al. PI-RADS Steering Committee. The PI-RADS multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed biopsy pathway. Radiology 2019; 292(2): 464–474. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182946.
5. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378(19): 1767–1777. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993.
6. Giannakodimos I, Kaltsas A, Moulavasilis N et al. Fusion MRI/ultrasound-guided transperineal biopsy: a game changer in prostate cancer diagnosis. J Clin Med 2025; 14(2): 453. doi: 10.3390/jcm14020453.
7. Stejskal J, Hanáček V, Adamcová V et al. Transperineální biopsie v diagnostice karcinomu prostaty. Ces Urol 2021; 25(2): 94–105. doi: 10.48095/cccu2021019.
8. Grummet J, Pepdjonovic L, Huang S et al. Transperineal vs. transrectal biopsy in MRI targeting. Transl Androl Urol 2017; 6(3): 368–375. doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.03.58.
9. Yang YJ, Yang EJ, Nguyen TT et al. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials across settings with and without magnetic resonance imaging targeting. Eur Urol Open Sci 2025; 83 : 205–218. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2025.12.008
10. Zattoni F, Rajwa P, Miszczyk M et al. Transperineal versus transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Eur Urol Oncol 2024; 7(6): 1303–1312. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.07.009.
11. Marra G, Bazzurro F, Dematteis A et al. Transperineal versus transrectal biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Urol Oncol 2026. In press. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2026.01.009.
12. Xiang J, Yan H, Li J et al. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2019; 17(1): 31. doi: 10.1186/s12957-019-1573-0.
13. Stangl FP, Day E, Vallée M et al. Infectious complications after transrectal versus transperineal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2026; 12(2): 275–283. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2025.07.005.
14. Du J, Chen S, Terris MK et al. Comparison of prostate cancer detection rates and complications between transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal and transrectal biopsies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol 2025; 14(5): 1418–1428. doi: 10.21037/tau-2025-150.
15. Chen KW, Poon BY, Tan N et al. Comparing outcomes of transperineal to transrectal prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2022; 130(2): 186–192. doi: 10.1111/bju.15688.
16. Hu JC, Assel M, Allaf ME et al. Transperineal versus transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic prostate biopsy to prevent infectious complications: the PREVENT randomized trial. Eur Urol 2024; 86(1): 61–68. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.12.015.
17. Pradere B, Veeratterapillay R, Dimitropoulos K et al. Nonantibiotic strategies for the prevention of infectious complications following prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 2021; 205(3): 653–663. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001399.
18. Mian BM, Siddiqui MM, Leapman MS et al. Transperineal vs transrectal prostate biopsy to reduce postinterventional complications: the ProBE-PC randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2023; 9(11): 1559–1565. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.4079.
19. Suartz CV, Santos LA, Matalani CF et al. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2026; 24(1): 102467. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2025.102467.
20. Krsakova E, Čermák A, Fedorko M. Comparison of different regimens of short-term antibiotic prophylaxis in transrectal prostate biopsy. J Hosp Infect 2024; 145 : 83–87. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2023.12.012.
21. Ryšánková K, Hanzlíková P, Vrtková A. Transperineálně prováděné fúzní US/MRI navigované biopsie prostaty. Ces Urol 2021; 25(1): 27–34. doi: 10.48095/cccu2021001.
Labels
Paediatric urologist Nephrology UrologyArticle was published in
Czech Urology
2026 Issue 3
Most read in this issue
- Papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity
- Peyronie’s disease (induratio penis plastica) – contemporary perspective on diagnosis and management in Czech clinical practice
- Central European Urology Meeting in Krakow 2026
- Vzdělávání – rozdíl mezi evropským standardem a českou praxí