Effects of Hand Holding on Anxiety and Pain During Prostate Biopsies: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Background: Effective pain management is limited for patients during prostate biopsy (PBx). Touch support, such as hand holding, has stress-buffering benefits and effective analgesic effects. We conducted a prospective, single-center randomized clinical trial to assess whether hand holding can reduce patient anxiety, pain, and dissatisfaction during PBx. Methods: Between April 2020 and October 2020, 120 male patients were randomized into three groups: a hand holding with relatives (HR) group, a hand holding with strangers (HS) group and a control group. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for self-assessments of pain and satisfaction. Anxiety levels were quantified according to the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Hemodynamic changes were also measured. Results: The degree of pain and anxiety in the hand-holding groups was significantly better than that in the control group (P<0.001), and the patients were more willing to undergo repeat PBx (P=0.017). The anxiety levels in the HR group were significantly lower than those in the HS group (P=0.019). During PBx, the changes in systolic blood pressure and heart rate in the hand-holding groups were more stable than those in the control group (P<0.01), and the fluctuations in heart rate in the HR group were smaller than those in the HS group (P<0.01). Conclusion:Hand holding, especially with relatives, can promote incremental reductions in anxiety, pain and dissatisfaction in patients during PBx. Hence, we recommend hand holding with relatives as an effective adjunct during PBx.

Ureteral access sheath. Does it improve the results of flexible ureteroscopy? A narrative review

“…No significant differences were found in terms of SFR and the rate of complications (4). The insertion success rate can vary depending on the caliber of UAS, as demonstrated by Li et al (5) They found that the utilization of 10/12 Fr UAS resulted in a higher insertion success rate (91.2% vs. 86.9%, P = 0.006) and lower severity of ureteral wall injury (80.1% vs. 85.2%, P < 0.001) compared to 12/14 Fr UAS. The SFR was similar in both groups.…”