Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Penile prosthesis coating and the reduction of postoperative infection

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the recent development of effective oral agents for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, penile prosthesis implantation remains an effective and acceptable treatment for the significant number of men who fail to respond to nonsurgical therapy. The most serious complication that can affect the use of most prosthetic devices is infection. In penile prostheses, this can be devastating and frequently results in removal of the device despite aggressive antibiotic therapy. In recent years, new strategies have been developed in an attempt to minimize this risk. This review focuses on one such method, namely the use of an antibiotic coating on the device. It reviews recent published data regarding the effectiveness of such devices at decreasing infection rates.

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 and Recommended Reading

  1. Carson CC: Management of prosthesis infections in urologic surgery. Urol Clinics North Am 1999, 26:829–839. Review dealing with every aspect of penile prosthesis infection.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM: Penile prosthesis infections. Int J Imp Res 2001, 13:326–328.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jarow JP: Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol 1996, 156:402–404. This study attempts to elucidate the risk factors for infection in penile prostheses.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Carson CC: Diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of penile prosthesis infection. Int J Imp Res 2003, 15:S139-S146. Recent review summarizing relevant studies in penile prosthesis infection.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wilson SK, Delk JR: Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol 1995, 153:659–661. Large study looking at risk factors for infection in penile prostheses.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Roberts JA, Fussell EN, Lewis RW: Bacterial adherence to penile prosthesis. Int J Impot Res 1989, 1:167–178.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Carson CC, Robertson CN: Late hematogenous infection to penile prosthesis. J Urol 1988, 139:112–118.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fishman IJ, Scott FB, Selam IN: Rescue procedure: an alternative to complete removal for treatment of infected penile prosthesis. J Urol 1987, 137:202A.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carson CC: Infections in genitourinary prostheses. Urol Clin North Am 1989, 16:139–147.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Licht MR, Montague DK, Angermeier KW, et al.: Cultures from genitourinary prostheses at reoperation: questioning the role of staphylococcus epidermidis in periprosthetic infection. J Urol 1995, 154:387–390. One of the first studies highlighting the prevalence of bacterial colonization of penile prostheses.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR, et al.: Inflatable penile prosthesis culture during revision surgery. Abstract Presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting. Chicago: April 26–May 3, 2003.

  12. Radomski SB, Herschorn S: Risk factors associated with penile prosthesis infection. J Urol 1992, 147:383–385.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Garber BB, Marcus SM: Does surgical approach affect the incidence of inflatable penile prosthesis infection? Urology 1998, 52:291–293.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fallon B, Ghanem H: Infected penile prosthesis: incidence and outcomes. Int J Impot Res 1989, 1:175–188.

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilson SK, Carson CC, Cleves MA, et al.: Quantifying risks of penile prosthesis infection with elevated glycosylated hemoglobin. J Urol 1998, 159:1537–1540.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Brant MD, Ludlow JK, Mulcahy JJ: The prosthesis salvage operation: immediate replacement of the infected penile prosthesis. J Urol 1996, 155:155–157.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mulcahy JJ: Long-term experience with salvage of infected penile implants. J Urol 2000, 163:481–482.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Costerton JW, Cheng KJ, Geesey GG, et al.: Bacterial biofilms in nature and disease. Ann Rev Microbiol 1987, 41:435–464.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Silverstein A, Donatucci CF: Bacterial biofilms and implantable prosthetic devices. Int J Impot Res 2003, S5:S150–154. Excellent review dealing with bacterial biofilms on prosthetic devices, with an emphasis on the penile prosthesis.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Costerton JW: Introduction to biofilm. Int J Antimicrobial Agents 1999, 11:217–221.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Silverstein AD, Evans B, Pasmore M: Biofilm formation on clinically non-infected penile prosthetic surfaces. Abstract Presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting. San Francisco: May 8–13, 2004.

  23. Evans RC, Holmes CJ: Effect of vancomycin hydrochloride on Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm associated with silicone elastomers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987, 31:889–894.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Choong S, Whitfield H: Biofilms and their role in infections in urology. BJU Int 2000, 86:935–941. Review focusing on biofilms in urology.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. De Torres WR, Carson CC: Antibiotic prophylaxis in urologic surgery. Curr Opin Urol 1995, 5:48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Maffezzini M, Capone M, Ciampalini S: Antibiotic prophylaxis in prosthetic penile surgery: critical assessment of results in 75 consecutive patients. Int J Impot Res 1996, 8:87–89.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kabalin JN, Kessler R: Infectious complications of penile prosthesis surgery. J Urol 1988, 139:953–955.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Randrup ER: Clinical experience with 180 inflatable penile prostheses. South Med J 1995, 88:47–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Classen DC, Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, et al.: Timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992, 326:281–286. This is a landmark paper on the timing of antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. This study provides strong evidence for administering antibiotics prior to skin incision.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Acar O, Mutlu B, Cimen K, et al.: The role of intraoperative antibiotic irrigation and postoperative antibiotic therapy for contaminated implantable prosthesis: in a rat model in vivo. Int J Impot Res 2000, 12:285–288.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Towers AG, Stinson NE: The effect of an antimicrobial coating on metal implants: a pilot study in goats. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1996, 37:211–218.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Schierholz JM, Steinhauser H, Rump AFE, et al.: Controlled release of antibiotics from biomedical polyurethanes: morphological and structural features. Biomaterials 1997, 18:839–844.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Raad I, Darouiche R: Central venous catheters (CVC) coated with minocycline and rifampin (M/R) for the prevention of catheter-related bacteremia (CRB) [Abstract J7]. In Program and Abstracts of the 35th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1995:258.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Raad I, Darouiche R, Hachem R, et al.: Antibiotics and prevention of microbial colonization of catheters. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995, 39:2397–2400.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Raad I, Dariouche R, Dupuis J, et al.: Central venous catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections: a randomized, double-blind trial. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:267–274.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Darouiche RO, Hampel OZ, Boone TB: Antimicrobial activity and durability of a novel antimicrobial-impregnated bladder catheter. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1997, 8:243–247.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Darouiche RO, Smith JA Jr, Hanna H, et al.: Efficacy of antimicrobial-impregnated bladder catheters in reducing catheter-associated bacteriuria: a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. Urology 1999, 54:976–981.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Li H, Fairfax MR, Dubocq F, et al.: Antibacterial activity of antibiotic coated silicone grafts. J Urol 1998, 160:1910–1913. This is an important early study that provided the foundation for antibiotic coatings on penile prostheses. The study indicates that this antibiotic coating may decrease the device colonization rate.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. InhibiZone, antibiotic surface treatment. In Preclinical study. Data on file, Minnetonka, MN: American Medical Systems, Inc.; 2001.

  40. Sherertz RJ, Carruth WA, Hampton AA, et al.: Efficacy of antibiotic coated catheters in preventing subcutaneous Staphylococcus aureus infection in rabbits. J Infect Dis 1993, 167:98–106.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Brock G, Bochinski D: InhibiZone treatment: the first antibiotic treatment impregnated into the tissue-contacting surface of an inflatable penile prosthesis. Abstract Presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting. Anaheim. CA: June 2–7, 2001.

  42. Wilson SK, Delk JR, Henry GD: Early results show antibiotic coating (InhibiZone) decreases infection in AMS 700 CX penile prosthesis. Abstract Presented at the South Central Section American Urological Association Meeting. Colorado Springs, CO: October 5–9, 2002.

  43. Ryan RT, Jones LA: Early experience with antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) in a high-risk patient population. Abstract Presented at the South Central Section American Urological Association Meeting. Colorado Springs, CO: October 5–9, 2002.

  44. Wilson SK, Henry GD, Del JR, et al.: Prevention of infection in revision of penile prostheses by using antibiotic coated prosthesis and Mulcahy salvage protocol. Abstract Presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting. Chicago: April 26–May 1, 2003.

  45. Abouassaly R, Angermeier KW, Montague DK: Risk of infection with use of an antibiotic-coated penile prosthesis at the time of device replacement for mechanical failure. Abstract Presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting. San Francisco: May 8–13, 2004.

  46. Carson CC: Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol 2004, 171:1611–1614. This study provides the strongest evidence that applying an antibiotic coating to penile prostheses may decrease the subsequent infection rate.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Jansen B, Jansen S, Peters G, et al.: In vitro efficacy of a central venous catheter (‘hydrocath’) loaded with teicoplanin to prevent bacterial colonization. J Hosp Infect 1992, 22:93–107. This study supplies evidence that a hydrophilic coating on the penile prosthesis may decrease device infection rate.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Boelens JJ, Tan WF, Dankert J, et al.: Antibacterial activity of antibiotic-soaked polyvinlypyrrolidone-grafted silicone elastomer hydrocephalus shunts. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000, 45:221–224.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Hellstrom WJ, Hyun JS, Human L, et al.: Antimicrobial activity of antibiotic-soaked, Resist-coated Bioflex. Int J Impot Res 2003, 15:18–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Wolter C, Rajpurkar AD, Kendirci M, et al.: Hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis: 1-year experience. Abstract Presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting. San Francisco: May 8–13, 2004. This study provides early evidence that penile prostheses with a hydrophilic coating may contribute to decreased device infection rates.

  51. Karchmer AW, Archer GL, Dismukes WE: Rifampin treatment of prosthetic valve endocarditis due to Staphylococcus epidermidis. Rev Infect Dis 1983, 5(suppl 3):S543-S548.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wheat LJ, Kohler RB, Luft FC, et al.: Long-term studies of the effect of rifampin on nasal carriage of coagulase-positive staphylococci. Rev Infect Dis 1983, 5(suppl 3):S459-S462.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Minuth JN, Holmes TM, Musher DM, et al.: Activity of tetracycline, doxycycline, and minocycline against methicillin-susceptible and -resistant staphylococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1974, 6:411–414.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Testa RT, Petersen, PJ, Jacobus NV, et al.: In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of the glycylcyclines: a new class of semisynthetic tetracyclines. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993, 37:2270–2277.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Robertson JM, Reeve EC: Analysis of the resistance mediated by several R-factors to tetracycline and minocycline. Genet Res 1972, 20:239–252.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Speer BS, Shoemaker NB, Saylers AA: Bacterial resistance to tetracycline: mechanisms, transfer, and clinical significance. Clin Microbiol Rev 1992, 5:387–399.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Nishijima S, Akamatsu H, Akamatsu M, et al.: The antibiotic susceptibility of Propionibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidermidis isolated from acne. J Dermatol 1994, 21:166–171.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Segretti J, Gvazdinskas LC, Trenholme GM: In vitro activity of minocycline and rifampin against staphylococci. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1989, 12:253–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Yourassowsky E, Vander Linden MP, Lismont JJ, et al.: Combination of minocycline and rifampin against methicillin-and gentamycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Path 1981, 34:559–563.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Clumeck N, Marcelis L, Amiri-Lamraski MH, et al.: Treatment of severe staphylococcal infections with a rifampicin-minocycline association. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984, 13:17–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Darouiche R, Wright C, Hamill R, et al.: Eradication of colonization by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by using oral minocyline-rifampin and topical mupirocin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991, 35:1612–1615.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Darouiche RO, Raad II, Bodey GP, et al.: Antibiotic susceptibility of staphylococcal isolates from patients with vascular catheter-related bacteremia: potential role of the combination of minocycline and rifampin. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1995, 6:31–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Tambe SM, Sampath L, Modak SM: In vitro evaluation of the risk of developing bacterial resistance to antiseptics and antibiotics used in medical devices. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001, 47:589–598.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Glickman Urological Institute. A/100, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, 44195, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Drogo K. Montague MD

Authors
  1. Robert Abouassaly MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Drogo K. Montague MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abouassaly, R., Montague, D.K. Penile prosthesis coating and the reduction of postoperative infection. Curr Urol Rep 5, 460–466 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-004-0071-1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-004-0071-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation