Group comparison
Table 2 compares UTI incidence. The age and presence of diabetes were significantly higher in patients with postbiopsy UTI (p =0.002 andp =0.005, respectively), and tPSA and prostate cancer detection were also significantly higher in patients with UTI (p <0.001 and p =0.001, respectively) (Table 2).
When the data was divided according to preoperative rectal preparation, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of age, BMI, and diabetes (p =0.076, p =0.489, and p =0.265, respectively). PSA level, f/t PSA ratio, and prostate size were also similar between the groups (p =0.193, p =0.518, andp =0.661, respectively) (Table 3). While chronic prostatitis was higher in Group 1, ISUP 1 and 2 pathologies were higher in Group 2. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of pathological evaluation (p =0.428).
The median hospitalization date was significantly higher in Group 1 (p =0.003) as was UTI development (p =0.004). However, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of fever, epididymitis, and sepsis (p =0.524, p =0.521, andp =0.548, respectively). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that UTI was significantly lower in Group 2 patients with diabetes (p =0.004), but there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of UTI development in non-diabetic patients (p =0.215).
Multivariate analysis showed that age and presence of diabetes was a significant risk factor for the development of UTI (OR: 0.074, 95%CI: 1.027-1.130, p =0.002 and OR: 1.220, 95%CI: 0.131-0.665,p =0.003, respectively; Table 4). Furthermore, the additional enema was found to be a significantly protective factor for preventing UTI in patients with diabetes (OR: -1.794, 95%CI: 2.208-16.389,p <0.001).