The management of rectal bleeding following transrectal prostate biopsy: A review of the current literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Since the advent of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based testing, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy has become a standard part of the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer (PCa). Rectal bleeding is one of the common side effects of this transrectal route. While rectal bleeding is usually mild and self-limiting, it can be life-threatening. In this article, we examine rectal bleeding post-TRUS-guided prostate biopsy and explore the literature to evaluate techniques and strategies aimed at preventing and managing this common and important complication. METHODS: A PubMed literature search was carried out using the keywords "transrectal-prostate-biopsy-bleed." A search of the bibliography of reviewed studies was also conducted. Additionally, papers in non-PubMed-listed journals of which the authors were aware were appraised. RESULTS: Numerous modifiable risk factors for this bleeding complication exist, particularly anticoagulants/antiplatelets and the number of core biopsies taken. Successfully described corrective measures for such rectal bleeding include tamponade (digital/packs/catheter/tampon/condom), endoscopic sclerotherapy/banding/clipping, radiological embolization, and surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: We advocate early consultation with the colorectal/gastroenterology and interventional radiology services and a progressive, stepwise approach to the management of post-biopsy rectal bleeding, starting with resuscitation and conservative tamponade measures, moving to endoscopic hemostasis ± radiological embolization ± transanal surgical methods. Given the infrequent but serious nature of major rectal bleeding after TRUS biopsy, we recommend the establishment of centralized databases or registries forthwith to prospectively capture such data. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive look specifically at the management of post-TRUS biopsy rectal bleeding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".