Background:Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate is the most common modality used to diagnose prostate cancer.Objectives:The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal number of cores at prostate biopsy, which have the most diagnostic value with least adverse effects.Patients and Materials:Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) guided biopsy was performed in 180 patients suspicious for prostate cancer due to either abnormal rectal examination or elevated PSA. The patients were divided randomly into three groups of six-core, twelve-core and eighteen-core biopsies. The detection rate of prostate cancer in each group with the rate of post biopsy urinary infection and prostatitis were compared.Results:Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 8 (13.3%), 21 (35%) and 24 (40%) patients in six, twelve and eighteen core biopsy groups, respectively. Urinary tract infection and prostatitis occurred in 17 (28.3%), 23 (38.3%) and 35 (58.3%) patients in six, twelve and eighteen core biopsy groups, respectively. Considering the detection rate of prostate cancer, there was a significant difference between 6 and 12 core biopsy groups (P = 0.006) and 12-core biopsies detected more cases of prostate cancer, but there was no significant difference between 12 and 18 core biopsy groups (P = 0.572). Considering the infection rate, there was no significant difference between 6 and 12 core biopsy groups (P = 0.254), but there was a significant difference between 12 and 18 core biopsy groups (P = 0.028) and infectious complications occurred more frequently in 18-core biopsy group.Conclusions:The best balance between detection rate of prostate cancer and infectious complications of biopsies achieved in twelve-core biopsy protocol. Twelve-core biopsy enhances the rate of prostate cancer detection with minimum adverse effects.

Introduction Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is one of the most common disorders causing chronic muscle pain. Almost one-third of patients with musculoskeletal complaints meet the MPS criteria. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of intramuscular electrical stimulation (IMES) in patients with MPS through a systematic review method. Methods PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ProQuest, PEDro, Web of Science, and CINAHL were systematically searched to find out the eligible articles without language limitations from 1990 to December 30, 2020. All relevant randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of IMES with sham-IMES, dry needling, or exercise therapy in patients with MPS were included. Full texts of the selected studies were critically appraised using Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2). Results Six studies (out of 397) had met our inclusion criteria (involving 158 patients) and were entered to the systematic review. Outcome measures examined in these studies included pain, range of motion, pressure pain threshold, biochemical factors, disability, and amount of analgesic use. In the most studies, it has been shown that IMES is more effective than the control group in improving some outcome measurements such as pain. Conclusion There is preliminary evidence from a few small trials suggesting the efficacy of IMES for the care of myofascial pain syndrome. The data support the conduct of larger trials investigating the efficacy of IMES.

Background: Biolaser is an emerging technology, which has attracted the attention of many surgeons and specialists in different medical fields. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of ultrasound-guided biolaser radiation versus ozone therapy in reducing chronic pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis during a three-month follow-up. Patients and Methods: Sixty patients referring to pain clinic of Shohadaye-Tajrish and Akhtar hospitals in 2017, were included in this randomized single-blind clinical trial study. According to a randomized table of numbers, in Biolaser group (n = 30): 10 mL of normal saline + 5 mL of lidocaine 1% + BioLaser + Physical Therapy and in the Ozone group (n = 30), received 10 mL Ozone (30 mic/mL) plus 5 mL lidocaine 1% + BioLaser placebo + Physical Therapy received. The patients were evaluated for pain using visual analog scale (VAS) and knee function with Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questioner. The patients were followed up 4 & 12 weeks and reviewed at weeks 12 after the injection by an observer who was unaware of the groups (IRCT20111121008146N15). Results: Comparison of the mean age (56.8 ± 8.5 years in the biolaser group vs. 51.5 ± 5.4 years in the ozone therapy group; P = 0.721) and body mass index (31.1 ± 3.4 kg/m2 in the biolaser group vs. 30.5 ± 2.6 kg/m2 in the ozone therapy group; P = 0.214) did not indicate any significant differences between the two groups. The pain severity decreased significantly at different times in the biolaser and ozone therapy groups (P = 0.018). The knee pressure sensitivity score was 1.3 ± 0.5 in the biolaser group and 1.6 ± 0.4 in the ozone therapy group at 12 weeks post-treatment (P = 0.037). The knee circumference was also 35.6 ± 3.0 cm in the biolaser group and 39.7 ± 3.9 cm in the ozone therapy group at 12 weeks post-treatment (P = 0.032). The KOOS performance score was 46.9 ± 9.4 in the biolaser group and 49.3 ± 7.9 in the ozone therapy group (P = 0.187). Besides, the KOOS quality of life score was 10 ± 1.3 in the biolaser group and 10.4 ± 1.5 in the ozone therapy group (P = 0.586). Conclusion: Biolaser therapy under ultrasound guidance was found to be a safe, non-invasive, and effective method, which could improve chronic pain in knee osteoarthritis during a three-month follow-up.