Advances in Infection Prevention Strategies for Penile Prosthesis Surgery
- 5 Downloads
Purpose of Review
To describe recent advances in infection prevention strategies for penile prosthesis surgery.
Improvements in surgical technique, antibiotic prophylaxis, prosthetic device design, and patient selection have globally reduced penile prosthesis infection rates. However, current societal antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines may fail to cover all organisms implicated in penile prosthesis infections, particularly fungal and anaerobic pathogens.
Although significant strides have been made in reducing penile prosthesis infections, further education and research efforts are needed to continue to prevent this infrequent, but devastating complication. This review discusses recent advances in penile infection understanding and prevention.
KeywordsErectile dysfunction Penile prosthesis Infection control
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Rezaee, Dr. Butaney, and Dr. Thirumavalavan each declare they have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This research study was not supported financially.
Dr. Gross reports grants and personal fees from Coloplast, outside the submitted work.
Dr. Munarriz reports his role as a consultant and investigator for Coloplast.
Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 7.O’Rourke TK Jr, Erbella A, Zhang Y, Wosnitzer MS. Prevention, identification, and management of post-operative penile implant complications of infection, hematoma, and device malfunction. Transl Androl Urol. 2017:S832–48.Google Scholar
- 23.•• Gross MS, Phillips EA, Carrasquillo RJ, 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. Multicenter retrospective study to investigate penile prosthesis infection microbiology to consider with changes in practice could decrease infection rate, to evaluate current antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines, and to develop a proposed algorithm for penile prosthesis infections. This study showed a high incidence of anaerobic, Candida, and MRSA infections. Approximately 1/3 on infected prosthesis cases had negative cultures. Microorganisms identified in this study were not covered by the EUA and AUA antibiotic guidelines in at least 14% to 38% of cases. These findings suggest broadening antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines and creating a management now greater than for IPP infections might lower infection rate improved cell base excess PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 28.• Gross MS, Reinstatler L, Henry GD, et al. Multicenter Investigation of Fungal Infections of Inflatable Penile Prostheses. J Sex Med. 2019;16(7):1100–5. Multi-institutional database review of IPP infections to examine for common patient and surgical factors related to IPP fungal infections. Fungal infection represent 12% of all penile prosthesis infections in our series and were seen mostly in diabetic are rate patients, who may benefit from antifungal prophylaxis. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Gross MS, Vollstedt AJ, Cleves MA, et al. Multicenter investigation on the influence of climate in penile prosthesis infection. Int J Impot Res. 2019.Google Scholar
- 37.Bode LG, Kluytmans JA, Wertheim HF, Bogaers D, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Roosendaal R, et al. Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):9–17.Google Scholar
- 40.Grabe M, Bartolett R, Bjerklund Johansen TEB, et al. Guidelines of Urological Infections. https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/19-Urological-infections_LR2.pdf. Published 2015. Accessed September 22, 2019.
- 50.• Gross MS, Phillips EA, Balen A, et al. The Malleable Implant Salvage Technique: Infection Outcomes after Mulcahy Salvage Procedure and Replacement of Infected Inflatable Penile Prosthesis with Malleable Prosthesis. J Urol. 2016;195(3):694–7. Multi-institutional retrospective review of 58 patients treated between 2002 and 2014 who underwent Mulcahy salvage with inflatable penile prosthesis removal and replacement with malleable prosthesis. This analysis shows a high infection free rate. Additionally 17 of 54 patient who remained infection free were able to successfully undergo subsequent removal of the malleable prosthesis replacement with an inflatable penile prosthesis. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 53.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: A Review of the Cytotoxic and Microbiological Effects of Common Irrigation Solutions. J Sex Med. 2019;16(6):781–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 54.Manka M, Hebert K, Dodge N, Yang D, Kohler T, Trost L. MP27-18 INTRAOPERATIVE USE OF BETADINE IRRIGATION IS ASSOCIATED WITH A 9-FOLD INCREASE OF PENILE PROSTHESIS INFECTION. J Urol. 2019;201(Supplement 4):e370–1.Google Scholar