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).