Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the risk factorsfor penile prosthesis infection.Methods: The records of 135 penileprosthesis implantation in 127 patients werereviewed.Of the 135 prothesis, 115 were malleable, 12were self-contained and 8 were inflatable. Ofthese procedures, 111 were primary, 9 wereprimary with reconstructions and 15 weresecondary. Mean follow-up was 47 months(minimum 6 months). All of the reconstructionswere penile plications or plaque excisions forPeyronie's disease. Results: The ratio of penile prosthesis infectionwas 8.89%. Secondary implantation, paraplegia, non-controlled diabetes mellitus(p < 0.001) and surgeon's inexperience(p < 0.05) were detected as the risk factors for penileprosthesis infection. But age, smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, atherosclerosis, presenceof diabetes mellitus (DM), history of penile surgery, simple penile reconstruction, type ofthe erectile dysfunction (ED), type of the penile prostheses and incision and were not found asthe risk factors (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Paraplegie, non-controlled diabetes mellitus,secondary implantation and surgeon's inexperience appear to be the riskfactors for penile prosthesis infection. In secondary implantation, longer operation timeis detected as a factor increasing the risk of penile prosthesis infection. For these patients, careful preoperativepreparation, more attention to perioperative antisepsis andpostoperative follow-up are required. Since ithas been determined that surgical experiencesdecrease the complication rate, these patients should be operated by experienced surgeons.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    NIH Consensus Development Panel on Impotence. JAMA 1993; 270:83.

  2. 2.

    Olivio V, Raminez-Ronda CH. Infections of penile prosthesis: treatment and preventation. 13d Asoc Med PR 1994; 86(0- 12): 84-87.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Jonathnan P Jarow. Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol 1996; 156: 402-404.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wilson SK, Delk JR. II: inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol 1995; 153:659.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Quesada ET, Light JK. The AMS700 inflatable penile prosthesis: long term experience with the controlled expansion cylinders. J Urol 1993; 149:46.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kaufman JM, Kaufman JL, Borges PD. Immediate salvage procedure for infected penile prothesis. J Urol 1998; 159: 816-818.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Carson CC, Robertson CN. Late hematogenous infection of penile prostheses. J Urol 1988; 139:50.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Little JW, Rhodus NL. The need for antibiotic prophylaxis of patients with penile implants during invasive dental procedures: a national survey of urologists. J Urol 1992; 148:1801.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Thomalla JV, Thompson ST, Rowland RG, Mulcahy JJ. Infectious complications of penile prosthetic implants. J Urol 1987; 138:65.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Montague DK. Periprosthetic infections. J Urol 1987; 138:68.

  11. 11.

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

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Mulcahy JJ, Brant MD, Ludlow JK. Management of infected penile implants. Tech Urol 1995; 1(5): 115-119.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Fallon B, Ghanem H. Infected penile prostheses: incidence and outcomes. Int J Impot Res 1986; 175-186.

  14. 14.

    Rossier AB, Fam BA. Indicators and results of semirigid penile prosthesis in spinal cord injury patients: long term follow-up. J Urol 1984; 131: 59-61.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lynch MJ, Scott GM, Inglis JA, Pryor JP. Reducing the loss of implants following penile prosthetic surgery. Br J Urol 1994; 73:423.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Bishop JR, Moul JW, Sihelnik SA et al. Use of glycosylated hemoglobin to identify diabetics at high risk for penile periprosthetic infections. J Urol 1992; 147: 386-388.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kabalin JM, Kessler R. Infectious complications of penile prosthesis surgery. J Urol 1988; 139: 953-955.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Radomsky SB, Herschorn S. Risk factors associated with penile prosthesis infection. J Urol 1992; 147: 383-385.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Spollett GR. Assesment and management of erectile dysfunction in men with diabetes. Diabetes Educ 1999; 25(1): 65-73.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Wilson SK, Carson CC, Cleves MA, Delk JR. 2nd Quanti-fiying risk of penile prothesis infection with elevated glycosylated hemoglobin. J Urol 1998; 159(5): 1537-1539.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Burns-Cox N, Burston A, Gingell JC. Fifteen years experience of penile prosthesis insertion. Int J Impot Res 1997; 9(4): 211-216.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Garber BB, Marcus SM. Does surgical approach affect the incidence of inflatable penile prosthesis infection? Urology 1998; 52(2): 291-293.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Licht MR, Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lahin MM. Cultures from genitourinary prostheses at reoperation: questioning the role of Staphylococcus epidennidis in periprosthetic infection. J Urol 1995; 154:387.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Çakan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Çakan, M., Demirel, F., Karabacak, O. et al. Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. Int Urol Nephrol 35, 209–213 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:UROL.0000020300.23522.49

Download citation

Keywords

  • Alcohol
  • Obesity
  • Diabetes Mellitus
  • Atherosclerosis
  • Alcohol Consumption