Revision washout decreases implant capsule tissue culture positivity: a multicenter study

Penile prosthesis for erectile dysfunction: recommendations from the 5th International Consultation on Sexual Medicine

INTRODUCTION

Penile prosthesis (PP) is one of the main approved therapies for erectile dysfunction (ED). Greater than 50 years of clinical use has led to considerable innovation in PP surgery and patient care.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the current literature and provide updated clinical evidence to inform healthcare providers on best practices with PP.

METHODS

A consensus panel was held with leading sexual medicine experts during the 5th International Consultation on Sexual Medicine (ICSM). Relevant peer-reviewed literature was reviewed with focus on research from but not limited to the last 10 years. The quality of each individual study was judged with Oxford levels of evidence (LOE) criteria, but overall LOE were not used as systematic review was not performed. The expert panel generated consensus statements based on the quality of evidence and criteria of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

RESULTS

PP provides excellent outcomes for the treatment of ED. The panel developed 35 recommendations building upon previous recommendations. Nine recommendations (4, 5, 11,13,17, 25, 26, 31, and 32) are retained without change from 2015. Twelve recommendations (1, 2, 3, 7, 9,14,16,19,21, 28, 33, and 34) change syntax to make statements more active or change details. Fourteen recommendations (6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, and 35) are novel in this update.

CONCLUSION

Since the 4th ICSM, new evidence has emerged to guide PP use in modern sexual medicine. While multi-institutional studies are needed to improve outcomes, key challenges remain: reducing infections, enhancing devices, and improving awareness and accessibility. We recommend following 5th ICSM guidelines while emphasizing the importance of clinical judgment and shared decision-making for optimal PP outcomes.

Infection rates following urologic prosthetic revision without replacement of any device components compared to partial or complete device exchange: a single-center retrospective cohort study

Urologic implant revision carries a higher infection risk than virgin implantation. Historically, exchanging device components at the time of revision was performed to reduce infection risk. We hypothesize that revision without replacement of any parts of the device may not be associated with increased infection risk. A single-center, retrospective cohort study was performed on patients undergoing urologic implant revision from 2000 to 2021. Revisions involving exchange of any/all device components (+CE) were compared to revisions without exchange of any components (-CE). The primary outcome was infection or erosion within 12 weeks of revision. Infection rates were compared using Fischer exact test. Infection-free survival (IFS) was compared with Kaplan-Meier (KM) log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model. 551 revisions were included, including 497 revisions with CE and 54 without CE. Among those with at least 12 weeks follow-up, no difference was seen in infection rates within 12 weeks of revision [-CE 3/39 (7.7%) vs. +CE 10/383 (2.6%)], p = 0.109). In addition, IFS was comparable between groups (log-rank test p = 0.22, HR for -CE 1.65 (0.65-4.21). Revision surgery for IPP or AUS without CE may not present an elevated risk of infection in the properly selected patient.

Evaluation of Bacteria in a Novel In Vitro Biofilm Model of Penile Prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Delayed infection, thought to be due to gradual biofilm formation, remains a feared complication after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) insertion. Understanding and preventing biofilm formation is necessary to prevent infections.

AIM

To develop an in vitro model and compare growth of biofilm by different bacteria on IPPs and evaluate the anti-infective efficacy of the Coloplast Titan and AMS 700 InhibiZone.

METHODS

Sterile IPPs (Coloplast) were cut into rings and incubated with S. epidermidis, S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, or K. pneumoniae cultures in tryptic soy broth (TSB) (4 hour) to ensure adequate bacteria attachment, and then in only TSB (120 hours) to allow for biofilm formation. Rings were fixed with ethanol and biofilm measured by spectrophotometer (OD570) after crystal violet staining. This methodology was repeated for S. epidermidis and P. aeruginosa with Coloplast rings dipped in 10 ml of a 10 mg/ml Rifampin, 1 mg/ml Gentamicin, and deionized water solution and undipped AMS InhibiZone rings. Crystal violet assay (OD570) was repeated after incubation within bacteria (2 hour), and then only TSB (120 hours).

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome of the study was OD570 readings, indirectly measuring biofilm mass on implant rings.

RESULTS

S. epidermidis, S. aureus, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and K. pneumoniae all formed significant biofilm. P. aeruginosa showed the strongest predilection to grow biofilm on IPPs. P. aeruginosa also formed significant biofilm on antibiotic-treated Coloplast and AMS rings, while S. epidermidis was inhibited. No significant difference was found in biofilm inhibition between the implants.

CLINICAL TRANSLATION

Our findings suggest gram-negative bacteria may form biofilm more proficiently and quickly on IPPs than gram-positive organisms. Commonly used antibiotic treatments on IPPs may be effective against S. epidermidis but not against P. aeruginosa biofilm formation.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

This is the first study comparing biofilm formation by different bacteria organisms on IPPs and the inhibitive ability of Coloplast and AMS implants against biofilm formation. Clinical data on organisms responsible for infected IPPs is needed to determine the clinical relevance of our findings.

CONCLUSION

Our novel in vitro model of biofilm formation of IPPs evaluated the effect of a gentamicin/rifampin antibiotic dip on Coloplast Titan implants and the anti-infective capacity of the minocycline/rifampin precoated AMS 700 InhibiZone against S. epidermidis and P. aeruginosa. P. aeruginosa was able to grow on both antibiotic-treated implants, with no significant difference, and should continue to be a specific target of investigation to reduce delayed post-operative IPP infections. Narasimman M, Ory J, Bartra SS, et al. Evaluation of Bacteria in a Novel In Vitro Biofilm Model of Penile Prosthesis. J Sex Med 2022;19:1024-1031.

Microorganism Profiles of Penile Prosthesis Removed for Infection, Erosion, and Mechanical Malfunction Based on Next-Generation Sequencing

BACKGROUND

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is an emerging technology that may allow for more sensitive and sophisticated microbial testing of the microbiota of penile prostheses (PP).

AIM

To describe the microorganism profiles of PP explanted for infection, erosion, and mechanical malfunction using NGS.

METHODS

All patients who underwent PP removal by two physicians at two institutions were identified. Differences in alpha diversity (ie, number of species detected, species diversity across samples) and microbiome compositional profiles (Bray-Curtis community dissimilarities) across samples were assessed using ANOVA and PERMANOVA, respectively.

OUTCOMES

Number of species detected, species diversity across samples, and microbiome compositional profiles.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients who underwent device removal for infection (n = 8, 10%), erosion (n = 5, 6%), and mechanical malfunction (n = 70, 84%) were included. When considering all devices, 56% (n = 48) of NGS and 29% (n = 24) of standard cultures resulted positive for presence of microorganisms. Culture only detected the most abundant NGS species in 62.5% (n = 5) of infected devices. Species richness and microbiome compositional profiles varied by surgical indication, but not by age, race, diabetes status, or implant duration. Most frequent organisms by surgical indication were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (infection), Staphylococcus epidermidis (erosion), and Escherichia coli (mechanical malfunction). The highest relative abundance organisms were P aeruginosa (infection), Corynebacterium jeikeium (erosion), and E coli (mechanical malfunction).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Identifying microbiome profiles of PP removed for infection, erosion, and mechanical malfunction may guide the selection of peri-operative antibiotics and PP antibiotic coatings or hydrophilic dip solutions for each individual scenario.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

While this is the first study to utilize next-generation sequencing to evaluate penile prosthesis biofilm, the clinical significance of these findings has yet to be determined. A prospective, randomized trial aimed at evaluating the clinical significance of NGS in patients with PP infection is currently underway.

CONCLUSION

NGS testing identified distinct microbiome profiles of PP removed for infection, erosion, and mechanical malfunction. Chung PH, Leong JY, Phillips CD, Henry GD. Microorganism Profiles of Penile Prosthesis Removed for Infection, Erosion, and Mechanical Malfunction Based on Next-Generation Sequencing. J Sex Med 2022;19:356-363.

Infected penile prosthesis: literature review highlighting the status quo of prevention and management

INTRODUCTION

Erectile dysfunction affects over 50% of men 70 years and above, and penile prosthesis (PP) is its third-line treatment. Complications of PPs include infection, however, no formal guidelines exist for its management.

METHODS

We performed a literature search and reviewed 53 recent published literatures of experiences with management of PP infections, prevention, and treatment.

RESULTS

Acute infection can present early with pain and discharge and detection of early signs is of utmost importance. MRI studies are more sensitive than CT studies to diagnose and plan surgical intervention. Introduction of antibiotic impregnated devices attributed to the reduction of infection rates with superiority proven for certain types; the no-touch technique had further reduced this rate. The Mulcahy salvage remains the most widely used surgical approach for treatment despite modifications and novel techniques described; conservative management of PP infections is recently reported with promising results.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite absence of strict guidelines for the management of infected PPs, we reviewed and discussed numerous panel opinions and suggestions throughout literature. More research into the pathology, prevention, conservative management and advances in surgical treatment of this condition are called for to produce guidelines that unite the efforts to tackle these infections.

Penile prosthesis implant in the special populations: diabetics, neurogenic conditions, fibrotic cases, concurrent urinary continence surgery, and salvage implants

Penile prosthesis implant (PPI) remains an effective and safe treatment option for men with erectile dysfunction (ED). However, PPI surgery can be associated with a higher risk of complications in certain populations. This article provides a critical review of relevant publications pertaining to PPI in men with diabetes, significant corporal fibrosis, spinal cord injury, concurrent continence surgery, and complex salvage cases. The discussion of each category of special populations includes a brief review of the surgical challenges and a practical action-based set of recommendations. While specific patient populations posed considerable challenges in PPI surgery, strict pre- and postoperative management coupled with safe surgical practice is a prerequisite to achieving excellent clinical outcomes and high patient satisfaction rate.

Intraoperative Use of Betadine Irrigation is Associated With a 9-Fold Increased Likelihood of Penile Prosthesis Infection: Results From a Retrospective Case-Control Study

Introduction

Infection remains a persistent complication of penile prosthesis (PP) surgery. Despite popularity of Mulcahy’s PP washout protocol, Betadine has known tissue toxicity.

Aim

We evaluated PP infection rate based on the type of intraoperative irrigation used, ½ strength Betadine vs vancomycin/gentamicin.

Methods

We reviewed a prospective database of men undergoing primary, revision, and salvage PPs. No other changes to operative or perioperative techniques occurred after the change in irrigation solution. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate differences in infection rate with use of Betadine vs vancomycin/gentamicin irrigation. Potential confounders were reviewed.

Main Outcome Measure

The primary outcome was rate of PP infection before and after change of intraoperative irrigation.

Results

From 2014 to 2018, 217 patients underwent PP placement at our institution by a single surgeon; of whom, 21 (9.7%) experienced an infection (primary = 10 [7.1%], revision = 11 [17.19%], salvage = 0 [0%]). Overall, 152 (70%) received irrigation with Betadine and 65 (30%) with Vancomycin/Gentamicin. Univariate analysis demonstrated significantly increased infection rates with Betadine irrigation (odds ratio [OR]: 4.64, P = .006) and with revision surgery (OR: 2.68, P = .02). Significance of increased infection rate with Betadine was maintained (OR: 9.3; P = .025) after controlling for age, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, smoking, diabetes, primary vs revision/salvage, prior penile surgery, use of ectopic reservoir, and adjunctive glanulopexy.

Conclusions

Changing from intraoperative Betadine to vancomycin/gentamicin solution dramatically reduced infection rates among men undergoing PP placement in both primary and revision cases. We hypothesize that differences in infection rate may relate to the relative toxicity or non-sterile nature of Betadine.

Manka MG, Yang D, Andrews J, et al. Intraoperative Use of Betadine Irrigation is Associated With a 9-Fold Increased Likelihood of Penile Prosthesis Infection: Results From a Retrospective Case-Control Study. Sex Med 2020;8:422–427.

Long-term sequelae of inflatable penile prosthesis: clinical characteristics of patients who develop distal cylinder tip extrusion

Background

Impending distal cylinder tip extrusions (DCTE) make up approximately 5-33% of all inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reoperations. While there have been a few case reports of DCTE in patients with diabetes and trauma, the current literature regarding risk factors for DCTE is limited. In this study, we examined the long-term sequelae among a large cohort of IPP patients to identify clinical risk factors for impending DCTE.

Methods

A retrospective review was completed of our single surgeon IPP database of 797 IPP placement cases from the years 2007 to 2018. We identified those who had a surgical intervention for a confirmed DCTE. Infected prostheses were excluded. The primary clinical end point of this study was to identify the time to extrusion repair from original penile prosthesis placement. Secondary clinical end points included location of extrusion and presence of corporal fibrosis.

Results

Between the years 2007 to 2018, 26 cases (3%) of impending or complete cylinder extrusions were identified in our IPP database (n=797). The mean age at initial IPP placement was 58 years, compared to a mean of 66 years at the time of extrusion. The mean time from initial placement to extrusion repair surgery was 8.4 years (median 5.5 years). Most patients (15/26, 57.7%) had a history of prior IPP placement, five of whom had two or more prior prostheses. Location among the 26 extrusions varied-12 (46.2%) lateral, 9 (34.6%) distal urethra, 2 (7.7%) glanular, 2 (7.7%) mid-shaft, and 1 (3.8%) coronal sulcus. Concomitant pathologies identified include Peyronie's disease (7, 26.9%), idiopathic corporal fibrosis (7, 26.9%) and sickle cell disease with priapism induced erectile dysfunction (3, 11.5%).

Conclusions

The risk of IPP extrusion appears to be associated with increased time from initial prosthesis placement, prior history of IPP placement, and the presence of corporal fibrosis or deformity. Patients should be counseled to recognize this important long-term sequela of IPP surgery.

Manganese dioxide coating reduces bacterial adhesion and infection in silicon implants in animal model

PURPOSE

To propose a new coating to silicone implants using Manganese dioxide. We present bacterial adhesion and proliferation when implants are challenged with Escherichia coli.

METHODS

Coated and control silicon implants were placed in two independent subcutaneous pouches in the dorsum of Wistar rats. After skin closure, 0.5 ml of E. coli solution was injected in each incision. The animals were euthanized at 7 and 28 days. Extracted material was cultured and analyzed by confocal microscopy.

RESULTS

At 1 week, uncoated implants had a 17-fold higher infection rate (p < 0.001). Coated samples showed a mean bacterial count of 28,700 CFU/ml, while the control ones 503,000 CFU/ml, with a significant mean difference of 474,300 CFU/ml (95% CI 165,900-782,600). At 4 weeks, the mean bacterial growth in coated group was 7600; while in control one was 53,890. The mean difference between groups was 46,200 (95% CI 21,100-71,400). Confocal microscopy presented the percentage of implant's surface with attached bacteria: at 7 days, coated implants had 6.85% and controls 10.9% and the difference was not significant (p =0.32). At 4 weeks, the coated group showed 0.98% of the surface with attached bacteria, while control group showed 7.64%, which resulted in a significant 11-fold difference (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Manganese dioxide coating inhibits bacterial proliferation and adhesion in subcutaneous silicon implants in an animal model. These findings can be useful to improve development of biomaterials.

Bacterial colonization of penile prosthesis after its withdrawal due to mechanical failure

INTRODUCTION

Prosthetic surgery to treat erectile dysfunction has a risk of infection of up to 3%, but this risk can increase to 18% when the surgery involves replacement. This increased risk of infection is attributed to the bacterial colonization of the prosthesis during the initial surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the presence of germs in the prosthesis that is withdrawn due to mechanical failure (not infection), as well as the surgical results and its progression.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

A retrospective study was conducted of all replacements performed between 2013 and 2016 at a single centre. We analysed demographic data, prior type of prosthesis, surgical procedure, microbiological study and follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 12 replacement procedures, a microbiological study of the extracted prosthesis was performed in a total of 10 cases. Of the 10 replacements, the cultures were positive in 5 cases (50%). Staphylococcus epidermidis was the most prevalent germ. All patients underwent a flushing procedure, and an antibiotic-coated prosthesis was implanted. We recorded no infections with the new implanted device after a mean follow-up of 27.33 months (SD 4.13; 95% CI 18.22-36.43).

CONCLUSION

In our study population, we observed a high rate of bacterial colonization of the prostheses that were replaced due to mechanical failure. When a flushing procedure was performed during the replacement surgery, there were no more infections than those reported in treatment-naive cases.

A practical overview of considerations for penile prosthesis placement

Penile prostheses have remained the gold-standard therapy for medically refractory erectile dysfunction (ED) since their popularization. Advances in device design and surgical techniques have yielded improved rates of infection, satisfaction, and mechanical survival of devices. Operative techniques in penile prosthesis surgery include the use of adjunctive procedures (such as ventral phalloplasty and release of the suspensory ligament), management of penile fibrosis, and manoeuvres to correct Peyronie's-disease-related curvature. Complications include urethral and corporal perforation, crossover, infection, impending erosion, and/or supersonic transporter deformity. Long-term data regarding mechanical, overall, and infection-free survival demonstrate excellent results, and, given the consistently high satisfaction rates and limited alternatives for medically refractory ED, penile prostheses are likely to remain a relevant and important treatment strategy for the foreseeable future.

Infections Associated with Inflatable Penile Prostheses

INTRODUCTION

The implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) has become a successful method for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Infections are rare but they can result in devastating complications following surgical implantation of the prosthesis.

AIM

To discuss pathogenesis, risk factors, and microbiology of IPP infections, summarize clinical manifestation and diagnostic methods, and discuss future directions of prevention and management.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed of all articles published from 1960 to present relating to IPP infections.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE AND RESULTS

Skin flora organisms such as Staphylococcus epidermis are the most common source of infection. Several host and surgical risk factors for prosthesis infection have been demonstrated, including uncontrolled diabetes mellitus and previous surgical interventions. Biofilms play an important role in the pathogenesis of device-related infections. Pain, fever, drainage, and device extrusions are suggestive of IPP infection. Preventive methods include preoperative skin cleansing, systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, and the use of surface-modified prostheses. The most frequently utilized surgical management is a single-stage approach that comprises aggressive irrigation and debridement, removal of all components of the infected prosthesis, and placement of a new IPP in the same surgical setting.

CONCLUSION

Advances in systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis, skin cleansing and surface-modification of the devices, as well as a number of other potentially protective measures, have decreased the rates of infections. Currently, most infected IPP are surgically managed by adopting the salvage approach. Al Mohajer M and Darouiche RO. Infections associated with inflatable penile prostheses. Sex Med Rev 2014;2:134-140.

Two Fungal Infections of Inflatable Penile Prostheses in Diabetics

Introduction

Penile prosthesis infections have decreased since the introduction of antibiotic‐coated implants. Infections that do occur can be from more rare and virulent organisms than the traditional skin flora historically implicated.

Aim

In this report, we present two cases of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infection from Candida organisms in insulin‐dependent diabetic patients.

Methods

Case report with literature review.

Main Outcome Measures

Resolution of the two cases.

Results

Both patients were found to have insulin‐dependent diabetes. Both patients also presented with infection of the device with Candida species, with the implant pump adherent to their scrotal skin.

Conclusions

This report supports the emerging literature that the flora of IPP infections is changing. We suggest considering adding antifungal agents to antibiotic coatings, dips, or washout solutions at the time of penile prosthesis surgery in diabetic patients. Cotta BH, Butcher M, Welliver C, McVary K, and Köhler T. Two fungal infections of inflatable penile prostheses in diabetics. Sex Med 2015;3:339–342.

Significance of biofilm for the prosthetic surgeon

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.

Complications associated with retained foreign bodies from infected penile implants: proposal for the use of an implant-specific checklist at the time of device removal

INTRODUCTION

Infection of a penile prosthesis requires that all device hardware and associated foreign materials are removed, irrespective of whether a salvage procedure will be performed. Failure to remove all foreign bodies from the operative field may result in persistent infection, necessitating surgical intervention.

AIM

To review our experience with complications arising from retained foreign bodies following removal of an infected penile prosthesis. We highlight the clinical features that should raise suspicion of retained device-associated materials, and also the role of imaging in evaluating these patients. Finally, a rational approach to prevent these occurrences is proposed with the implementation of an implant-specific checklist.

METHODS

Medical records and imaging studies of patients presenting to our center with retained foreign bodies following removal of an infected penile prosthesis were reviewed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical and radiologic details of each of these cases were abstracted, including patient demographics, presenting symptoms, characteristics of retained materials, bacterial cultures, treatment, and follow-up.

RESULTS

Presenting symptoms included: (i) persistent and relapsing drainage from cutaneous fistulae; (ii) cellulitis overlying an infected reservoir; (iii) persistent penile pain; and (iv) an asymptomatic individual requesting elective placement of a second implant. Infected foreign materials retrieved included: two rear-tip extenders, a tubing connector, two infected reservoirs, and nonabsorbable mesh. Preoperative computerized tomography scan confirmed the presence and the location of all of these materials. Using this data, we propose using an implant-specific checklist to insure removal of all device-related foreign bodies when explanting an infected penile prosthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of adverse sequelae may result from inadvertently leaving behind device-related materials when an infected implant is removed. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the surgeon removing an infected implant to insure that all device components and associated materials are removed. We believe that implementing a two-step implant-specific checklist is a rational prevention strategy.

Intentionally retained pressure-regulating balloon in artificial urinary sphincter revision

INTRODUCTION

The traditional surgical approach for revision of a malfunctioning artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) includes removal and replacement of all device components, identical to that employed in the setting of an infected or eroded AUS.

AIMS

  To describe outcomes of our technique in which we intentionally leave behind the original pressure-regulating balloon (PRB) at time of AUS revision in a clinically non-infected setting.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our combined institutional series of 35 patients who underwent 36 AUS revisions in which the original pressure-regulating balloon was left undisturbed. We removed and replaced the defective cuff and pump through a single peno-scrotal incision for most patients requiring revision of a non-infected AUS. The new PRB was then placed on the opposite side through this single incision.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Assessment of outcomes, complication, and infection rate of this surgical series.

RESULTS

All of the patients had the original pressure-regulating balloon placed through an inguinal counter-incision. Mean follow-up time was 14 months (2-33 months). Overall complication rate for the revision series was 11%. No infections or complications occurred secondary to the retained PRB.

CONCLUSION

Follow-up of our series provides evidence that retention of the original PRB at the time of non-infected AUS revision is safe. Potential advantages include elimination of a counter incision and technically challenging exploration. By eliminating these aspects, the potentially resultant decreased operative time may help counter the theoretical yet unproven risk of infection from leaving the old PRB in place.

An outcomes analysis of over 200 revision surgeries for penile prosthesis implantation: a multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation is a well-established treatment for medically refractory erectile dysfunction, with long-term reliability. Overall survival is 96% at 5 years and 60% at 15 years for primary (virgin) implantation.

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore factors associated with success and complications of IPP revision surgery in a multicenter study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Reasons for revision including mechanical issues, patient dissatisfaction, corporal deformity, and supersonic transport (SST) deformity were recorded.

METHODS

At four institutions, 214 clinically uninfected IPP revisions were performed between November 2000 and November 2007. Data were incomplete for 28 cases (14%). Failure-free survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier's Meier product limit method.

RESULTS

The majority of revisions were secondary to mechanical failure (N = 109; 65%) and combined erosion or infection (N = 17 + 15 = 32; 19%). Sixteen percent (N = 26) were carried out on functional uninfected prostheses secondary to patient dissatisfaction (N = 9), SST deformity (N = 10), scrotal hematoma (N = 2), or upsize revision because of corporal fibrosis (N = 5). Average age at revision was 66 years. Mean follow-up time was 55.7 months. In this study, 12 individuals required a secondary revision procedure or suffered a complication. Despite prior reports of high infection rates with revision surgery, only 5.7% of clinically uninfected and noneroded prostheses were complicated by infection or impending extrusion/erosion, following a revision washout protocol. Overall, 93% of cases were successfully revised, providing functioning IPPs.

CONCLUSIONS

For this study population, component exchange followed by revision washout showed a low incidence of infection and subsequent mechanical failure.

Contemporary revision penile prosthesis surgery is not associated with a high risk of implant colonization or infection: a single-surgeon series

INTRODUCTION

Revision penile prosthesis surgery has traditionally been associated with a greater risk of postoperative infection than primary implant placement. This has been attributed to the high prevalence of asymptomatic bacteria found surrounding the implant at the time of revision surgery.

AIM

To validate whether contemporary revision surgery remains associated with a high risk of asymptomatic colonization and postoperative infection.

METHODS

A comprehensive, prospective database consisting of consecutive patients undergoing primary and revision penile prosthesis surgery at our center was analyzed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The infection risk in primary and revision implant surgery was compared. The prevalence of asymptomatic implant colonization during revision surgery, and whether this was associated with clinical infection was evaluated. The spectrum of bacterial species causing infection in this contemporary single-surgeon series was described.

RESULTS

One hundred seventeen primary and 72 revision implant recipients were studied. Infection developed in four (3.4%) patients undergoing primary implants, two (4.3%) patients undergoing removal and replacement for mechanical malfunction, and three (12%) patients undergoing rerouting for extrusion (P = 0.26). Intraoperative cultures were positive in 5 (9.8%) of 51 revision patients, none of whom developed infections. Organisms causing infection included Staphylococcus aureus and Enterobacter aerogenes. Unexpectedly, an adjuvant, alcohol-based skin prep in our last 83 patients reduced the infection risk to 1.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, the infection risk associated with revision of malfunctioning devices was no greater than primary implant placement. Rerouting was associated with a higher infection risk, likely due to technical factors, and not implant colonization. Less than 10% of our revision implants were colonized, and this had no bearing on the development of a postoperative infection. S. epidermidis was not the most common organism implicated in device infections. Finally, our experience with an adjuvant, alcohol-based skin prep warrants further randomized prospective evaluation.

Antibiotic patterns with inflatable penile prosthesis insertion

INTRODUCTION

A clear set of guidelines has not been defined in the use of antibiotics in penile prosthesis implantation. Aim.  We surveyed urologists throughout the United States to determine current practice patterns regarding antibiotic use in primary and revision penile prosthesis surgery.

METHODS

Fifty-two Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMS) member urologist and 164 non-SMS member urologist responses were obtained.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The survey contained 10 questions regarding antibiotic selection for primary and revision inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation.

RESULTS

One hundred percent of responders in both groups utilize intraoperative antibiotics, most commonly vancomycin and gentamicin in both groups. Of SMS members, 94% prescribed postoperative home oral antibiotics in contrast to 88% of non-SMS members (P = 0.3). Among SMS members, the most common antibiotic prescribed postoperatively was levofloxacin 500 mg daily while among non-SMS members, the most common antibiotic postoperatively was cephalexin 500 mg 2-4 times daily. Of SMS members, antibiotic irrigation intraoperatively occurred with 100% and with 92% of non-SMS members (P = 0.04). Thirty-seven percent SMS physicians and 15% non-SMS physicians made modifications of intraoperative and postoperative antibiotics for high-risk patients (P = 0.001). In the circumstance of revision of a clinically noninfected IPP, 23% SMS and 16% non-SMS member physicians utilized additional antibiotics/treatment (P = 0.3). Sixteen of those surveyed admitted that they had been approached by their institution about their antibiotic use and asked to change. In the past 5 years, 29% surveyed have changed their practice patterns in antibiotic use.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant difference between practice patterns of SMS and non-SMS urologists in terms of antibiotic irrigation usage, modifications for high-risk patients, and consensus about the importance of antibiotic use with Coloplast Titan implant (Coloplast, Minneapolis, MN, USA). A significant lack of uniformity exists among urologists performing prosthetic surgery with regard to antibiotic protocols. A standard set of guidelines may prove useful to implanters.

Does a replacement or revision of an inflatable penile prosthesis lead to decreased patient satisfaction?

To analyze the reason for replacement, revision and overall satisfaction of a cohort who underwent surgical replacement of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). A cohort of 105 patients who underwent IPP replacement from 2005-2007 was retrieved from the prosthesis database. Approximately 21.9% (23) underwent replacement or revision of their prosthesis because of complications, and were further analyzed. Reason for removal was stratified into infectious and non-infectious (erosion, non-function and patient discomfort). Age, race (African American vs non-African American), smoking history, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease and hyperlipidemia were stratified by reason for removal. Finally, we contacted patients and recorded subjective satisfaction with their IPP. The reason for removal was most commonly because of a non-functional IPP (47.8%), followed by infection (30.4%), erosion (17.4%) and patient discomfort (4.3%). Age and race did not show a significant difference when analyzing reason for replacement (P > 0.05). Patients who were smokers (P = 0.907) had hypertension (P = 0.554), diabetes (P = 0.591) or hyperlipidemia (P = 0.219) did not have significantly higher infection rates. Approximately 58.3% were satisfied with their prosthesis, 75% would have the surgery performed again and 91.7% would still recommend prosthesis surgery. Device malfunction was the primary reason for replacement/removal at our institution. Despite the complications of prosthesis reoperation, the majority of patients were still satisfied with their prosthesis, would have the surgery performed again and would recommend prosthesis surgery to a friend.

A case of mechanical failure with proximal perforation at the time of revision surgery

BACKGROUND

Implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is a well-established treatment for medically refractory erectile dysfunction with proven long-term reliability. However, if an IPP fails, the subsequent surgery to fix the IPP can be more difficult with higher risks of complications than the primary implantation. Aims. To review and evaluate a case of a difficult IPP replacement surgery for ways to improve surgical techniques and outcomes.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Perform a case report of a difficult IPP replacement surgery in which the patient had proximal perforation of the tunica albuginea with a review of the pertinent literature. Results. The rear tip sling is a successful way to repair proximal perforation of the tunica albuginea. Recent publications show new surgical techniques to lower infection rates in IPP revision surgery.

DISCUSSION

The rear tip sling appears to have better outcomes than a synthetic windsock for repairs of proximal perforation of the tunica albuginea. Recent publications have shown that the revision washout decreases penile prosthesis infection rates in revision surgeries.

CONCLUSION

While revision surgery for IPPs have higher risks than primary implantation, newer surgical techniques are helping to reduce these risks.

Treatment of recurrent urinary incontinence after artificial urinary sphincter placement using the AdVance male sling

OBJECTIVES

We report on the use of the AdVance male sling to treat men who had an artificial urinary sphincter placed and subsequently developed recurrent urinary incontinence.

METHODS

Nineteen men who had undergone placement of an artificial urinary sphincter for post prostatectomy urinary incontinence, and who had developed recurrent incontinence, were treated by placing an AdVance sling. Self-reported pad use preoperatively was 2-5 pads per day.

RESULTS

All 19 patients (100%) reported improvement in their incontinence as documented by decreased pad use. Of these men, 15 (79%) became dry, using no further pads, and four (21%) decreased pad use to 1 pad per day. Of the 15 dry patients, 8 remained dry without reactivation of the artificial sphincter (53%); the other 7 maintained complete continence with a combination of the sling and an activated artificial sphincter.

CONCLUSIONS

Men who suffer from recurrent urinary incontinence secondary to cuff compression atrophy can be made continent by the placement of a male sling. The technique of sling placement requires no special modification in these patients. By not revising the artificial urinary sphincter the capsule surrounding the device is not violated, which may decrease the risk of postoperative infection. In addition, the patient may not need to rely upon the use of his artificial sphincter to maintain continence.

Current approach to the treatment of penile implant infections

Modern penile implants, introduced to the market almost four decades ago, have provided a predictable and reliable treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) despite the development of less-invasive therapies. Infection associated with the placement of these devices does occur, and with prophylactic measures and protocols the incidence has decreased fortunately. In the presence of an infection the implant and all foreign material should be removed. A salvage procedure, during which the wound is thoroughly washed with antiseptic solutions after device removal and placement of a new implant during the same procedure, has a high success rate and is becoming a popular approach. The alternative, device removal with return at a later date for placing a new implant, entails a more difficult corporal dilation, and the resulting erection is noticeably shorter. Patient and partner satisfaction with a penile implant is the highest among all of the treatments for ED.

Penile implant infections: prevention and treatment

Penile implants remain a mainstay in treating erectile dysfunction (ED). Despite competing therapies, the number of devices implanted has increased each year. Implant infection continues to be a problem, but recent advances in antibiotic-coated devices and copious use of antiseptic irrigation have reduced the incidence. When confronted with an implant infection, a salvage procedure has gained acceptance that involves immediate replacement of the infected implant after antiseptic washing of the implant cavities. This procedure minimizes shortening of the implant erection and facilitates placement of cylinders in corporal bodies. Among patients and health care providers, satisfaction with penile implant remains the highest for all ED treatments.