Advertisement

Current Sexual Health Reports

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 176–184 | Cite as

Preventing Infections in Prosthetic Surgery

  • Geraldo M. Macedo
  • Gerard D. HenryEmail author
Male and Female Surgical Interventions (C Carson and M Khera, Section Editors)
  • 30 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Male and Female Surgical Interventions

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Review current literature for risk factors and strategies to prevent infection in urological prosthetic implants.

Recent Findings

Recent studies on risk factors and special patients are described. Strategies to decrease infection rate, role, and importance of biofilm is also discussed.

Summary

Infection on implanted devices for the treatment of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence is the most feared complication. Risk factors, where/when most infections occur, and the role of biofilm are discussed. Infection rates decreased with the advent of infection-resistant coated devices, and subsequently, bacteriological/isolate profiles changed. The bacteriology of implant infection is reviewed. Basic rules of perioperative implant prevention are ensuring no concurrent infections, proper alcohol-based skin preparation (not iodine), appropriate sterile technique, preoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis, reduced operative time, and limiting the implant from touching the skin. Future research is also discussed.

Keywords

Inflatable penile prosthesis Infection Infection prevention Biofilm Revision washout 

Notes

Abbreviations and Acronyms

IPPinflatable penile prosthesis

PPpenile prosthesis

SSIsurgical site infection

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Gerard Henry reports personal fees from Boston Scientific as an investigator and consultant, Coloplast as an investigator, Medtonic as a consultant, and MicrogenDX as an investigator and consultant, outside of submitted work.

Geraldo Macedo declares no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Le B, Burnett AL. Evolution of penile prosthetic devices. Korean J Urol. 2015;56(3):179–86.  https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2015.56.3.179.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chung E. Penile prosthesis implant: scientific advances and technological innovations over the last four decades. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(1):37–45.  https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2016.12.06.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boysen WR, Cohen AJ, Kuchta K, Park S, Milose J. Combined placement of artificial urinary sphincter and inflatable penile prosthesis does not increase risk of perioperative complications or impact long-term device survival. Urology. 2019;124:264–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.10.033.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    •• Gross MS, Phillips EA, Carrasquillo RJ, Thornton A, Greenfield JM, Levine LA, et al. Multicenter Investigation of the Micro-Organisms Involved in Penile Prosthesis Infection: An Analysis of the Efficacy of the AUA and EAU Guidelines for Penile Prosthesis Prophylaxis. J Sex Med. 2017;14(3):455–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.01.007. Analyses culture results and antibiotic resistance of a large number of infected IPPs from 25 centers and compares with current AUA and EAU guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis. It found a high incidence of anaerobic, Candida, and methicillin-resistant S aureus infections. Micro-organisms identified in this study were not covered by the AUA and EAU antibiotic guidelines in at least 14% to 38% of cases. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mellon MJ, Broghammer JR, Henry GD. The Mulcahy salvage: past and present innovations. J Sex Med. 2015;12(Suppl 7):432–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12986.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Henry GD, Carson CC, Wilson SK, Wiygul J, Tornehl C, Cleves MA, et al. Revision washout decreases implant capsule tissue culture positivity: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2008;179(1):186–90; discussion 90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.168.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nehra A, Carson CC 3rd, Chapin AK, Ginkel AM. Long-term infection outcomes of 3-piece antibiotic impregnated penile prostheses used in replacement implant surgery. J Urol. 2012;188(3):899–903.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.04.116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd, Carson CC, Silverstein A, Cleves MA, et al. Penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2004;172(1):153–6.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000132141.48587.f1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd, Carson CC, Wiygul J, Tornehl C, et al. Revision washout decreases penile prosthesis infection in revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2005;173(1):89–92.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000146717.62215.6f.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Serefoglu EC, Mandava SH, Gokce A, Chouhan JD, Wilson SK, Hellstrom WJ. Long-term revision rate due to infection in hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prostheses: 11-year follow-up. J Sex Med. 2012;9(8):2182–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02830.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Jani K, Smith C, Delk JR 2nd, Carson CC, Donatucci CF, Cleves MA, et al. Infection Retardant Coatings Impact on Bacterial Presence in Penile Prosthesis Surgery: A Multicenter Study. Urology. 2018;119:104–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.05.028. Studied the effect of infection retardant coating on culture positive isolates found in uninfected and infected IPPs. It shows a change in bacteriological profile with IRC, fewer cultured isolates of Staphylococcus genus. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pastuszak AW, Lentz AC, Farooq A, Jones L, Bella AJ. Technological improvements in three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis design over the past 40 years. J Sex Med. 2015;12(Suppl 7):415–21.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.13004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carson CC. Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1611–4.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000118245.66976.e1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carrasquillo RJ, Munarriz RM, Gross MS. Infection prevention considerations for complex penile prosthesis recipients. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20(3):12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-019-0875-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tacconelli E, Muller NF, Lemmen S, Mutters NT, Hagel S, Meyer E. Infection risk in sterile operative procedures. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016;113(16):271–8.  https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2016.0271.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jarow JP. Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol. 1996;156(2 Pt 1):402–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eid JF, Wilson SK, Cleves M, Salem EA. Coated implants and "no touch" surgical technique decreases risk of infection in inflatable penile prosthesis implantation to 0.46%. Urology. 2012;79(6):1310–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.076.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Balen A, Gross MS, Phillips EA, Henry GD, Munarriz R. Active polysubstance abuse concurrent with surgery as a possible newly identified infection risk factor in inflatable penile prosthesis placement based on a retrospective analysis of health and socioeconomic factors. J Sex Med. 2016;13(4):697–701.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.01.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd. Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol. 1995;153(3 Pt 1):659–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Minervini A, Ralph DJ, Pryor JP. Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation for treating erectile dysfunction: experience with 504 procedures. BJU Int. 2006;97(1):129–33.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05907.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Habous M, Tal R, Tealab A, Soliman T, Nassar M, Mekawi Z, et al. Defining a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level that predicts increased risk of penile implant infection. BJU Int. 2018;121(2):293–300.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14076.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zermann D-H, Kutzenberger J, Sauerwein D, Schubert J, Loeffler U. Penile prosthetic surgery in neurologically impaired patients: long-term Followup. J Urol. 2006;175(3):1041–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00344-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Hendin BN. Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology. 2003;62(5):918–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(03)00665-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silverstein AD, Henry GD, Evans B, Pasmore M, Simmons CJ, Donatucci CF. Biofilm formation on clinically noninfected penile prostheses. J Urol. 2006;176(3):1008–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.034.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carson CC. Diagnosis, treatment and prevention of penile prosthesis infection. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15(S5):S139–S46.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901091.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ingraham FD, Alexander E Jr, Matson DD. Synthetic plastic materials in surgery. N Engl J Med. 1947;236(10):362; passim.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM194703062361004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Donlan RM. Biofilm formation: a clinically relevant microbiological process. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33(8):1387–92.  https://doi.org/10.1086/322972.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    •• Dawn LE, Henry GD, Tan GK, Wilson SK. Biofilm and Infectious Agents Present at the Time of Penile Prosthesis Revision Surgery: Times Are a Changing. Sex Med Rev. 2017;5(2):236–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.01.002. Discusses the role of biofilm in clinical infections and current changes in the bacteriology of infections. The abundance of staphylococcal species-particularly coagulase-negative organisms-in positive cultures has decreased in infected implants, and clinically uninfected implants also have shown a decrease in the proportion of staphylococcal species. Conversely, other isolates such as fungi, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus species have increased in clinically uninfected and infected implants, and there has been an overall increase in unique isolates that form the biofilm. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Donlan RM, Costerton JW. Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2002;15(2):167–93.  https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.15.2.167-193.2002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brant MD, Ludlow JK, Mulcahy JJ. The prosthesis salvage operation: immediate replacement of the infected penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1996;155(1):155–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Licht MR, Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM. Cultures from genitourinary prostheses at reoperation: questioning the role of Staphylococcus epidermidis in Periprosthetic infection. J Urol. 1995;154(2):387–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(01)67058-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kava BR, Kanagarajah P, Ayyathurai R. Contemporary revision penile prosthesis surgery is not associated with a high risk of implant colonization or infection: a single-surgeon series. J Sex Med. 2011;8(5):1540–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02222.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wilson SK, Costerton JW. Biofilm and penile prosthesis infections in the era of coated implants: a review. J Sex Med. 2012;9(1):44–53.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02428.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abouassaly R, Angermeier KW, Montague DK. Risk of infection with an antibiotic coated penile prosthesis at device replacement for mechanical failure. J Urol. 2006;176(6 Pt 1):2471–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shah NB, Tande AJ, Patel R, Berbari EF. Anaerobic prosthetic joint infection. Anaerobe. 2015;36:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2015.08.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chanyi RM, Alzubaidi R, Leung EJY, Wilcox HB, Brock GB, Burton JP. Inflatable penile prostheses implantation: does antibiotic exposure matter? Sex Med. 2018;6(3):248–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2018.05.004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wolter CE, Hellstrom WJG. The hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis: 1-year experience. J Sex Med. 2004;1(2):221–4.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2004.04032.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pan S, Rodriguez D, Thirumavalavan N, Gross MS, Eid JF, Mulcahy J, et al. The use of antiseptic solutions in the prevention and Management of Penile Prosthesis Infections: areview of the cytotoxic and microbiological effects of common irrigation solutions. J Sex Med. 2019;16(6):781–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.03.271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wilgus TA, Bergdall VK, Dipietro LA, Oberyszyn TM. Hydrogen peroxide disrupts scarless fetal wound repair. Wound Repair Regen. 2005;13(5):513–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1067-1927.2005.00072.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM, Otterson MF, Webb AL, Carrick MM, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):18–26.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0810988.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lee I, Agarwal RK, Lee BY, Fishman NO, Umscheid CA. Systematic review and cost analysis comparing use of chlorhexidine with use of iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis to prevent surgical site infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(12):1219–29.  https://doi.org/10.1086/657134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Young PY, Khadaroo RG. Surgical site infections. Surg Clin North Am. 2014;94(6):1245–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2014.08.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wolf JS Jr, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR, Hollenbeck BK, Pearle MS, Schaeffer AJ, et al. Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol. 2008;179(4):1379–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.068.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    G.Bonkat, R.Pickard, R.Bartoletti, F.Bruyère, S.E.Geerlings, F.Wagenlehner et al. EAU guidelines on urological infections. 2017.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Henry GD. Surgical techniques: the Henry mummy wrap™ and the Henry finger sweep™ surgical techniques. J Sex Med. 2009;6(3):619–22.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01200.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sadeghi-Nejad H, Ilbeigi P, Wilson SK, Delk JR, Siegel A, Seftel AD, et al. Multi-institutional outcome study on the efficacy of closed-suction drainage of the scrotum in three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. Int J Impot Res. 2005;17(6):535–8.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wilson SC, Cleves M, Mulcahy JJ. Scrotal Hematoma formation following penile prosthesis implantation: To drain or not to drain. J Urol. 1996;155:634A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wallen J, Beilan J, Emtage J, Bickell M, Martinez D, Carrion R, et al. 062 “Just the Tip” Closed Suction Drain Cultures after Implantation of Penile Prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2016;13(5):S30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.02.065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Eid JF. No-touch technique. J Sex Med. 2011;8(1):5–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02137.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Weinberg AC, Pagano MJ, Deibert CM, Valenzuela RJ. Sub-coronal inflatable penile prosthesis placement with modified no-touch technique: astep-by-step approach with outcomes. J Sex Med. 2016;13(2):270–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2015.12.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Graf K, Sohr D, Haverich A, Kuhn C, Gastmeier P, Chaberny IF. Decrease of deep sternal surgical site infection rates after cardiac surgery by a comprehensive infection control program. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2009;9(2):282–6.  https://doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2009.205286.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Grober ED, Domes T, Fanipour M, Copp JE. Preoperative hair removal on the male genitalia: clippers vs. razors. J Sex Med. 2013;10(2):589–94.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02904.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Makama JG, Okeme IM, Makama EJ, Ameh EA. Glove perforation rate in surgery: arandomized, controlled study to evaluate the efficacy of double gloving. Surg Infect. 2016;17(4):436–42.  https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2015.165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nickel JC, Olson M, McLean RJ, Grant SK, Costerton JW. An ecological study of infected urinary stone genesis in an animal model. Br J Urol. 1987;59(1):21–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stewart PS, William CJ. Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms. Lancet. 2001;358(9276):135–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05321-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lewis K. Riddle of biofilm resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45(4):999–1007.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.45.4.999-1007.2001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Henry G, Price G, Pryor M, Greenfield J, Jones L, Perito P, et al. Observation of local clinical penile prostheses infections instead of immediate salvage rescue/removal: ten center study with surprising results. Abstract #92. Proceedings of the 20(th) Annual Fall Scientific Meeting of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America, Miami Beach, USA, November 20–23, 2014. J Sex Med. 2015;12(Suppl 2):101–83.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Henry G, Price G, Pryor M, Greenfield J, Jones L, Perito P, et al. Pd20–04 Observation of Local Clinical Penile Prostheses Infections Instead of Immediate Salvage Rescue / Removal: Multicenter Study with Surprising Results. J Urol. 2014;191(4S):e1–e958.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.1694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Andrology DepartmentSanta Casa da Misericórdia de Fortaleza HospitalFortalezaBrazil
  2. 2.Ark-La-Tex UrologyBossier CityUSA

Personalised recommendations