Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Significance of Biofilm for the Prosthetic Surgeon

  • Men's Health (R Carrion and C Yang, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biofilm formation on implanted medical devices is becoming more recognized as both a common finding and a potential problem. Although seen frequently in nature, these sequestered bacterial communities are proving to be an assiduous enemy as medical device technologies advance. The penile prosthesis has gone through many improvements, now with a more reliable mechanical function and a reduced infection rate. However, there remains a notable increase in infectious risk in revisions compared to novel cases, with many implants found to harbor a subclinical bacterial presence isolated in biofilms. This article focuses on recent updates in implant technology and surgical technique to combat infection, and reviews current research on biofilm prevention and treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  1. Costerton JW, Donlan RM. Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2002;15:167–93.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk 2nd JR, Carson CC, Silverstein A, Cleves MA, et al. Penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2004;172:153–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilson SK, Delk 2nd JR. Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol. 1995;153(3 pt 1):659–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Hendin BN. Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology. 2003;62:918–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jarrow JP. Risk factors for penile prosthesis surgery. J Urol. 1996;156(2 pt 1):402–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk 2nd JR, Carson CC, Wiygul J, Tornehl C, et al. Revision washout decreases penile prosthesis infection in revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2005;173:89–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kalia VC. Quorum sensing inhibitors: an overview. Biotechnol Adv. 2013;31:224–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Crispim CA, Gaylarde PM, Gaylarde CC. Algal and cyanobacterial biofilms on calcareous historic buildings. Curr Microbiol. 2003;46:79–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Flemming HC, Neu TR, Wozniak DJ. The EPS matrix: the “house of biofilm cells”. J Bacteriol. 2007;189:7945–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. He W, Wang D, Ye Z, Qian W, Tao Y, Shi X, et al. Application of a nanotechnology antimicrobial spray to prevent lower urinary tract infection: a multicenter urology trial. J Transl Med. 2012;10 Suppl 1:S14. A promising clinical trial showing decreased biofilm formation in vivo using nanotechnology.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Arciola CR, Campoccia D, Speziale P, Montanaro L, Costerton JW. Biofilm formation in Staphylococcus implant infections. A review of molecular mechanisms and implications for biofilm-resistant materials. Biomaterials. 2012;33:5967–82. Description of the process of Staphylococcus biofilm formation, including the complex molecular signaling mechanisms controlling their expression. Coauthor is the “Father of Biofilms,” the late Dr. John William (Bill) Costerton.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wilson SK, Costerton JW. Biofilm and penile prosthesis infections in the era of coated implants: a review. J Sex Med. 2012;9:44–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Høiby N, Bjarnsholt T, Givskov M, Molin S, Ciofu O. Antibiotic resistance of bacterial biofilms. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010;35:322–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Singh R, Ray P, Das A, Sharma M. Role of persisters and small-colony variants in antibiotic resistance of planktonic and biofilm-associated Staphylococcus aureus: an in vitro study. J Med Microbiol. 2009;58(Pt 8):1067–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Meyle E, Stroh P, Günther F, Hoppy-Tichy T, Wagner C, Hänsch GM. Destruction of bacterial biofilms by polymorphonuclear neutrophils: relative contribution of phagocytosis, DNA release, and degranulation. Int J Artif Organs. 2010;33:608–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Arciola CR. Host defense against implant infection: the ambivalent role of phagocytosis. Int J Artif Organs. 2010;33:565–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thurlow LR, Hanke ML, Fritz T, Angle A, Aldrich A, Williams SH, et al. Staphylococcus aureus biofilms prevent macrophage phagocytosis and attenuate inflammation in vivo. J Immunol. 2011;186:6585–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McCann MT, Gilmore BF, Gorman SP. Staphylococcus epidermidis device-related infections: pathogenesis and clinical management. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2008;60:1551–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McKim SE, Carson 3rd CC. AMS 700 inflatable penile prosthesis with InhibiZone. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2010;7:11–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Carson 3rd CC. Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol. 2004;171:1611–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Carson 3rd CC, Mulcahy JJ, Harsch MR. Long-term infection outcomes after original antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis implants: up to 7.7 years of followup. J Urol. 2011;185:614–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mandava SH, Serefoglu EC, Freier MT, Wilson SK, Hellstrom WJ. Infection retardant coated inflatable penile prostheses decrease the incidence of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2012;188:1855–60. The most recent review of infection rates of the coated IPP, confirming an overall decreased incidence of infection.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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;79:1310–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brant MD, Ludlow JK, Mulcahy JJ. The prosthesis salvage operation: immediate replacement of the infected penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1996;155:155–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Silverstein AD, Henry GD, Evans B, Pasmore M, Simmons CJ, Donatucci CF. Biofilm formation on clinically noninfected penile prostheses. J Urol. 2006;176:1008–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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;179:186–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nehra J, Carson 3rd CC, Chapin AK, Ginkel AM. Long-term infection outcomes of 3-piece antibiotic impregnated penile prostheses used in replacement implant surgery. J Urol. 2012;188:899–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wilson SK, Zumbe J, Henry GD, Salem EA, Delk JR, Cleves MA. Infection reduction using antibiotic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 2007;70:337–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Henry GD, Donatucci CF, Conners W, Greenfield JM, Carson CC, Wilson SK, et al. An outcomes analysis of over 200 revision surgeries for penile prosthesis implantation: a multicenter study. J Sex Med. 2012;9:309–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Köhler TS, Modder JK, Dupree JM, Bush NC, McVary KT. Malleable implant substitution for the management of penile prosthesis pump erosion: a pilot study. J Sex Med. 2009;6:1474–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Swords K, Martinez DR, Lockhart JL, Carrion R. A preliminary report on the usage of an intracoporal antibiotic case with synthetic high purity CaSO4 for the treatment of infected penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2013;10:1162–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chen M, Yu Q, Sun H. Novel strategies for the prevention and treatment of biofilm related infections. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14:18488–501. An up-to-date review article describing various biofilm infection treatment strategies currently under development, with a focus on non-antibiotic based solutions.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ammons MC, Copié V. Mini-review: lactoferrin: a bioinspired, anti-biofilm therapeutic. Biofouling. 2013;29:443–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Banin E, Vasil ML, Greenberg EP. Iron and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:11076–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pérez-Giraldo C, Rodríguez-Benito A, Morán FJ, Hurtado C, Blanco MT, Gómez-García AC. Influence of N-acetylcysteine on the formation of biofilm by Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997;39:643–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mansouri MD, Hull RA, Stager CE, Cadle RM, Darouiche RO. In vitro activity and durability of a combination of an antibiofilm and an antibiotic against vascular catheter colonization. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:621–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kiedrowski MR, Horswill AR. New approaches for treating staphylococcal biofilm infections. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011;1241:104–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zelichenko G. Prevention of initial biofilm formation on ureteral stents using a sustained releasing varnish containing chlorhexidine: in vitro study. J Endourol. 2013;27:333–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Yeo IS, Kim HY, Lim KS, Han JS. Implant surface factors and bacterial adhesion: a review of the literature. Int J Artif Organs. 2012;35:762–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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;9:2182–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Raad I, Mohamed JA, Reitzel RA, Jiang Y, Raad S, Al Shuaibi M, et al. Improved antibiotic-impregnated catheters with extended-spectrum activity against resistant bacteria and fungi. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:935–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Antunes AL, Bonfanti JW, Perez LR, Pinto CC, Freitas AL, Macedo AJ, et al. High vancomycin resistance among biofilms produced by Staphylococcus species isolated from central venous catheters. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2011;106:51–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hoffman LR, D’Argenio DA, MacCoss MJ, Zhang Z, Jones RA, Miller SI. Aminoglycoside antibiotics induce bacterial biofilm formation. Nature. 2005;436:1171–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Roe D, Karandikar B, Bonn-Savage N, Gibbins B, Roullet JB. Antimicrobial surface functionalization of plastic catheters by silver nanoparticles. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;61:869–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bjarnsholt T, Ciofu O, Molin S, Givskov M, Høiby N. Applying insights from biofilm biology to drug development - can a new approach be developed? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12:791–808. A recent review article outlining the current strategies for cutting-edge anti-biofilm drug development.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Charles Welliver Jr. and Dr. Brittney L. Hanerhoff each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Dr. Gerard D. Henry is a consultant for and had travel/accommodations expenses covered or reimbursed by Endo. Dr. Henry received payment for the development of educational presentations, including service on speakers’ bureaus from Endo, Lilly, and Astellas.

Dr. Tobias S. Köhler is a consultant for Auxilium, Actient, Allergan, AMS, Coloplast, and AbbVie and has had travel/accommodations expenses covered or reimbursed.

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, IL, USA

    R. Charles Welliver Jr., Brittney L. Hanerhoff & Tobias S. Köhler

  2. Regional Urology, Shreveport, LA, USA

    Gerard D. Henry

Authors
  1. R. Charles Welliver Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brittney L. Hanerhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerard D. Henry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tobias S. Köhler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias S. Köhler.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Men’s Health

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Welliver, R.C., Hanerhoff, B.L., Henry, G.D. et al. Significance of Biofilm for the Prosthetic Surgeon. Curr Urol Rep 15, 411 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-014-0411-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-014-0411-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation