Evidence Hub

Comparison of Infectious Complications After Transrectal Prostate Biopsy Under Two Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens: Ceftriaxone Plus Cefixime Versus Ciprofloxacin Plus Gentamicin

Balık AY, Ediz E, Ayvacık B, Taşkıran AT, Başaran E, Baba D

International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association, 2026

705 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and safety of two antibiotic prophylaxis regimens, ciprofloxacin plus gentamicin and ceftriaxone plus cefixime, in preventing infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy.

Methods: The study retrospectively reviewed 705 consecutive patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy between January 2020 and January 2024. Group 1 (n = 374) received ciprofloxacin plus gentamicin, and Group 2 (n = 331) received ceftriaxone plus cefixime. All patients underwent standard rectal preparation with povidone-iodine, and needle-tip disinfection with formalin. The primary outcome was the development of post-biopsy infectious complications, while secondary outcomes included sepsis and infection-related hospitalization.

Results: The two groups were comparable in terms of age, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen levels, and comorbidities. The overall rate of post-biopsy infection was 1.4%, occurring in 1.1% patients in Group 1 and 1.8% patients in Group 2 (p = 0.61). The incidence of complicated urinary tract infection was 0.3% versus 0.9%, and infection-related hospitalization occurred in 0.5% versus 0.3% of patients in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively, with no cases of sepsis observed. In univariable analyses, diabetes mellitus, histopathological chronic prostatitis, and pre-biopsy antibiotic use were not significantly associated with post-biopsy infection.

Conclusion: The combination of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 705 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free