North American Consensus Document on Infection of Penile Prostheses

Penile implant infection part 3: the changing spectrum of treatment

Penile prosthesis infection remains a rare but devastating complication of implantation. Historically, management of device infection was always extirpation. While certainly effective, device removal leaves an unhappy patient with a shortened penis. In this last part of a three-part series on the topic of penile prosthesis infection, we seek to highlight new and emerging ideas of infection management which have allowed surgeons the option of preserving the implanted status in select patients.

The International Penile Prosthesis Implant Consensus Forum: clinical recommendations and surgical principles on the inflatable 3-piece penile prosthesis implant

Despite significant scientific advances in the modern three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implant surgery, it is not without surgical risks and can carry additional cosmetic and psychosocial consequences in poorly selected and consented individuals. To address this problem, an international group of key opinion leaders and high-volume prosthetic surgeons reviewed the current guidelines and clinical evidence, discussed their experiences, and formed a consensus regarding inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. The findings of this consensus panel were presented at the 17th biennial Asia Pacific Society of Sexual Medicine scientific meeting. The experts concluded that proper patient selection, informed consent and strict adherence to safe surgical principles are important to optimize clinical outcomes. Furthermore, most intraoperative complications, if recognized, can be addressed intraoperatively to enable placement of the device at the time of initial surgery. Men with significant corporal fibrosis due to Peyronie's disease, prior prosthesis explantation and priapism, and men who have undergone construction of a neophallus, as well as men who receive concurrent continence surgery, are complex cases requiring additional care and advanced techniques to obtain optimal surgical outcomes. Variability in patient care - in terms of postoperative antibiotic use, pain management, scrotal care, and cycling of the penile prosthesis implant - must be reduced to enable optimization and assessment of outcomes across patient groups.

Environmental, Microbiological, and Immunological Features of Bacterial Biofilms Associated with Implanted Medical Devices

The spread of biofilms on medical implants represents one of the principal triggers of persistent and chronic infections in clinical settings, and it has been the subject of many studies in the past few years, with most of them focused on prosthetic joint infections. We review here recent works on biofilm formation and microbial colonization on a large variety of indwelling devices, ranging from heart valves and pacemakers to urological and breast implants and from biliary stents and endoscopic tubes to contact lenses and neurosurgical implants. We focus on bacterial abundance and distribution across different devices and body sites and on the role of environmental features, such as the presence of fluid flow and properties of the implant surface, as well as on the interplay between bacterial colonization and the response of the human immune system.

Prevention of Penile Prosthesis Infection

INTRODUCTION

Management protocols for treatment of severe erectile dysfunction have changed little in the last 20 years. Most algorithms consider penile prostheses as the last option of treatment in patients who have failed medical management. Despite multiple advances in current devices, prosthetic infection remains the most feared complication by implanting surgeons and patients. This report tries to make a compilation of the factors that can be impacted to prevent penile implant infections, and to make penile implantation a safer and more reliable way to solve an erection deficit.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

List events related to the surgical act (pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative) that are related to the risk of infection to contextualize possible actions/measures used to avoid prosthetic infection.

RECENT FINDINGS

The impact of coated implants on reduction of infection rates. The recommendation to use chlorhexidine-based solutions over iodine solution for preoperative skin preps. Appears to be no difference in infection rates according to the approach chosen by the surgeon (infrapubic vs penoscrotal). The change in the microbial colonies that are colonizing implants in recent years are dramatic. Lack of evidence of which solutions to use for salvage or revision washout surgery: Chemical eradication or mechanical lavage cleansing?. Despite the importance of metabolic control in the literature, there is a disparity in exact glycemic values ​prior to the intervention in our literature. Factors such as preparation of the operative site, presence of comorbidities or previous surgeries, surgical time, or additional maneuvers during surgery can negatively impact the final result of penile prosthetic surgery.

Penile prosthesis salvage: a historical look at the Mulcahy technique and a review of the latest literature

Historically, management of inflatable penile prosthesis infection was explantation of the device with delayed reimplantation at a later date. In 1991, this paradigm was challenged when early attempts at washout and immediate salvage proved successful. The clinical experiences and data generated over the past 30 years have allowed implanters to refine their salvage procedures to improve patient outcomes. In this article, we review the original Mulcahy technique for salvage and discuss updates to this protocol based on recent data.

Plant-derived nanotherapeutic systems to counter the overgrowing threat of resistant microbes and biofilms

Since antiquity, the survival of human civilization has always been threatened by the microbial infections. An alarming surge in the resistant microbial strains against the conventional drugs is quite evident in the preceding years. Furthermore, failure of currently available regimens of antibiotics has been highlighted by the emerging threat of biofilms in the community and hospital settings. Biofilms are complex dynamic composites rich in extracellular polysaccharides and DNA, supporting plethora of symbiotic microbial life forms, that can grow on both living and non-living surfaces. These enforced structures are impervious to the drugs and lead to spread of recurrent and non-treatable infections. There is a strong realization among the scientists and healthcare providers to work out alternative strategies to combat the issue of drug resistance and biofilms. Plants are a traditional but rich source of effective antimicrobials with wider spectrum due to presence of multiple constituents in perfect synergy. Other than the biocompatibility and the safety profile, these phytochemicals have been repeatedly proven to overcome the non-responsiveness of resistant microbes and films via multiple pathways such as blocking the efflux pumps, better penetration across the cell membranes or biofilms, and anti-adhesive properties. However, the unfavorable physicochemical attributes and stability issues of these phytochemicals have hampered their commercialization. These issues of the phytochemicals can be solved by designing suitably constructed nanoscaled structures. Nanosized systems can not only improve the physicochemical features of the encapsulated payloads but can also enhance their pharmacokinetic and therapeutic profile. This review encompasses why and how various types of phytochemicals and their nanosized preparations counter the microbial resistance and the biofouling. We believe that phytochemical in tandem with nanotechnological innovations can be employed to defeat the microbial resistance and biofilms. This review will help in better understanding of the challenges associated with developing such platforms and their future prospects.

Case - Conservative management of deep penile skin infection post-three-piece penile prosthesis implantation

Not required

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.

Risk profiling in patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation

Penile prosthesis implantation is the gold standard of surgical therapy for patients with medication-refractory erectile dysfunction. However, this umbrella definition includes significant heterogeneity and associated risk profiles that should be candidly discussed and addressed perioperatively. Factors associated with operative success and patient satisfaction are often surgery specific; however, risk profiling via patient selection, preoperative optimization, proper device selection, and intraoperative consideration are highly correlated. Some examples of common risk profiles include comorbidity(ies) such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, prior abdominal surgery, Peyronie's disease, and psychological risk factors. Similarly, integration of surgeon- and patient-amenable characteristics is key to decreasing risk of infection, complication, and need for revision. Finally, patient risk profiling provides a unique context for proper device selection and evidence-based intraoperative considerations.

Prevalence of post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and a review of the recommended therapeutic modalities

Radical prostatectomy (RP) represents one of the most commonly used first-line treatment modalities in men with localized prostate cancer. One of the most feared post-surgical complications is erectile dysfunction (ED), usually caused by direct damage to the cavernous nerves or due to neuropraxia. Penile rehabilitation is an emerging concept that was proposed to stimulate and accelerate recovery of erectile function after RP. The goal is to improve blood flow to the penis, increasing cavernous oxygenation and avoiding fibrosis. The most common used modalities include oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5-I), vacuum erection devices (VEDs), intracorporeal injection (ICI) therapy, medicated urethral system for erections (MUSE), and a combination of these treatments. For those patients with severe ED, ED refractory to medical therapy and/or seeking long term reliable results, the penile prosthesis implant remains an excellent alternative. We conducted a broad review of post-prostatectomy ED prevalence with different techniques and the success rates of the different therapeutic approaches.

Minimizing Penile Prosthesis Implant Infection: What Can We Learn From Orthopedic Surgery?

The implantation of penile protheses for the surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction has risen in popularity over the past several decades. Considerable advances have been made in surgical protocol and device design, specifically targeting infection prevention. Despite these efforts, device infection remains a critical problem, which causes significant physical and emotional burden to the patient. The aim of this review is to broaden the discussion of best practices by not only examining practices in urology, but additionally delving into the field of orthopedic surgery to identify techniques and approaches that may be applied to penile prothesis surgery.

Sustained Glycemic Control Observed in Diabetic Men Who Improve Hemoglobin A1c Values to Allow for Elective Penile Prosthesis Placement

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesize that men with diabetes mellitus whose inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation is delayed for unacceptably high hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) will have durable improvements in their glycemic control after achieving acceptable HbA1c levels for surgery.

METHODS

Per institutional protocol, an A1c <9% must be documented prior to IPP placement. After IRB approval, a single surgeon IPP database was retrospectively queried for data specific to diabetes mellitus management. Men without HbA1c values at ≥1-year follow-up were excluded. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed to assess associations with sustained HbA1c control.

RESULTS

From January 2011 to March 2019, 138 diabetics undergoing IPP were identified. Thirty-seven were excluding for insufficient follow-up. Nineteen of the 101 analyzed men (18.8%) were delayed a median 4 months (range 2-17) for elevated HbA1c values (median 10.1, range 9.1-12.3). Following improvements, median preoperative HbA1c remained higher (8.2% vs 7.0%) in delayed men (P < .001). Among delayed recipients, 11 (58%) improved without medication changes while insulin was newly initiated (5) or dosage was increased (5) in 42%. At 32 months follow-up, a HbA1c <9% was similarly maintained in delayed and nondelayed men (74% vs 87%, P = .17). Delayed men more commonly required insulin therapy at follow-up (89.5% vs 54.9%, P = .008), but had a similar median change in BMI (+0.1 vs +0.1, P = .65). Device infection occurred in 1 nondelayed patient (0.7%).

CONCLUSION

Men who improve HbA1c for IPP surgery are likely to demonstrate persistent improvement. IPP implantation appears to be safe in diabetic men with HbA1c <9%.

Antibiotics and Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Insertion: A Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Antibiotic stewardship is now a priority for the urologic community. Perioperative antibiotic use at the time of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) insertion has become a topic of interest.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature available to inform the practice of antibiotic administration before, during, and after IPP insertion.

METHODS

We performed a literature review based on a search for the terms "Antibiotics" and "Penile Prosthesis" in the PubMed database. Manuscripts were individually reviewed for relevance to the administration of antibiotics in conjunction with IPP insertion. Best practice statements and guidelines from stakeholder organizations were also reviewed.

RESULTS

The benefits of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis have been well studied in the orthopedic and general surgery literature, but a dearth of studies are available in the specific context of IPP insertion. High-quality retrospective studies have demonstrated reduced infection rates with the use of antibiotic-impregnated or antibiotic-coated IPPs. Limited research on the use of postoperative antibiotics after IPP insertion has actually not demonstrated a benefit from this very common practice. Indeed, the broader surgical literature suggests a net harm from continued postoperative antibiosis. A 2017 guideline recommendation from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention states that additional prophylactic antibiotics should not be administered after procedures deemed clean or clean-contaminated.

CONCLUSION

The benefits of single-dose preoperative antibiotics and the use of antibiotic-impregnated or antibiotic-coated IPPs are well established. Postoperatively, the available IPP and broader surgical literature does not reflect a benefit from the administration of additional antibiotics and demonstrates higher rates of antibiotic-associated adverse events and the emergence of drug resistance. In average-risk patients undergoing IPP insertion, contemporary data suggest that it is safe for postoperative antibiotics to be withheld. Dropkin BM, Kaufman MR. Antibiotics and Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Insertion: A Literature Review. Sex Med 2021;9:174-180.

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.

The future of penile prostheses for the treatment of erectile dysfunction

Penile prostheses (both inflatable and malleable) are standard care in the management of erectile dysfunction (ED). Introduced over 45 years ago, modern penile implants have evolved greatly during that period of time and now represent the cutting edge in materials science and function. Despite the introduction of highly effective oral pharmacotherapy for ED, these devices have remained relevant and will almost certainly remain so for the foreseeable future. Despite their high degree of efficacy, there is always potential for further improvements in both implants themselves and the surgical techniques and processes used for their placement. In this manuscript we speculate on the future of penile implants, based in large part on the historical perspective and recent developments in the implant surgery space. We include recommendations on future technical innovations, post-operative management, and novel implant designs that may revolutionize the future management of ED.

Risk factors associated with penile prosthesis infection: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to identify the factors associated with infection in patients who undergo penile prosthesis implantation.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review/meta-analysis, including clinical trials, quasi-experiments, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, and case-control studies. Searching was done in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. Participants were patients who had erectile dysfunction, regardless of the etiology, and underwent penile prosthesis implantation. Two researchers reviewed each reference by title and abstract. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan® 5.3).

RESULTS

A total of 513 studies were found with the search strategies. After excluding duplicates, 40 studies with a total of 175,592 patients were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Among patient characteristics, we found that diabetes mellitus and immunosuppression appear to have increase odds of infection. Related to the procedure, infection-retardant-coated penile prosthesis and primary (first) surgery appear to lower odds of infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes mellitus and immunosuppression were associated with increased infection rates; infection-retardant coating of the prosthesis and primary surgery were associated with reduced infection rates.

Fundamentals of prosthetic urology

The field of prosthetic urology demonstrates the striking impact that simple devices can have on quality of life. Penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter implantation are the cornerstone procedures on which this specialty focuses. Modern research largely concentrates on decreasing the rates of complication and infection, as the current devices offer superior rates of satisfaction when revision is not necessary. These techniques are also able to salvage sexual function and continence in more difficult patient populations including female-to-male transgender individuals, those with ischemic priapism, and those with erectile dysfunction and incontinence secondary to prostatectomy. This review summarizes modern techniques, outcomes, and complications in the field of prosthetic urology.

A 3-piece penile prosthesis salvage in the presence of late-onset infected hematoma: Clinical, radiological and intraoperative findings-A case report

•

Penile prosthesis infection is a serious complication often managed radically.

•

In selected patients, infected prosthesis can be salvaged without removal.

•

Wound washout with antimicrobials and antiseptics is a key component of the management.

Introduction

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common health problem affecting 30% of young men worldwide. Despite the availability of non-invasive lines of management, penile prosthesis insertion is considered as a definite solution for ED. Despite strict perioperative measures, infection still complicates around 3% of penile prosthesis surgeries.

Presentation of case

This is a case of a 36-year-old male who had an infected scrotal hematoma that led to prosthesis malfunction due to the inability to locate the pump to activate and deactivate the device. Intraoperatively, the prosthesis was salvaged after hematoma evacuation and ensuring a good device functionality.

Discussion and conclusion

Infected penile prostheses are usually either removed completely with a new device insertion a few months later or exchanged at the same setting with vigorous wound washout. We suggest salvaging penile implants which are surrounded by infected hematomas in selected patients who don’t manifest systemic signs of infection. This approach will help in cost reduction and avoiding further intraoperative complications.

[Penile prostheses: Description of a series of implants with and without dilatation of the corpora cavernosa]

INTRODUCTION

Penile prosthesis (PP) implantation is the treatment of choice for refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). They show a high satisfaction rate (75%-100%) and a complication rate that varies between 2.1% and 28.8%. The standard surgical technique includes dilatation of the corpora cavernosa (CC) prior to the insertion of the cylinders. This step takes time and is critical for the occurrence of complications. The aim of this study is to describe the results of a series of PP implanted using the techniques with and without dilatation of the CC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One-hundred and 20 patients with refractory ED in whom a PP was implanted by 2 surgeons in different centers. Comorbidities, operative characteristics, satisfaction and postoperative complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

The average age was 61±9.6 years. The most prevalent comorbidities were: history of radical prostatectomy, high-blood pressure and diabetes mellitus. Forty-two malleable and 78 hydraulic prostheses were implanted. Eleven patients had a previous PP. The median operative time was 70minutes (35-140). The satisfaction reported was 95.8%. Ten patients presented complications. In the group in which the surgery was performed without dilatation of the CC (n=80), the operative time was shorter (62.5minutes [35-105] versus 90minutes [60-140] respectively, p<0.0001). There was no difference in complications (p=0.73) or levels of satisfaction (p=0.196) when comparing the technique with and without dilatation of the CC.

CONCLUSION

In our series, a shorter operative time was observed with the technique without dilatation of the CC, but there were no differences in complications. A prospective and randomized study is required to make a stronger recommendation regarding to dilatation of the CC.

MRI of the Penis: Indications, Anatomy, and Pathology

The purpose of this review is to discuss the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of penile pathology. Normal penile anatomy as well as the appearance of neoplastic and non-neoplastic entities on MRI will be reviewed. While ultrasound remains the first line imaging modality in evaluating most penile pathology, MR imaging has specific advantages owing to improved soft tissue resolution, ability to evaluate less accessible or complex anatomy (such as at the base of the penis), and the ability to detect subtle enhancement. Therefore, MRI is useful for when ultrasound and/or clinical findings are equivocal or incongruent. In addition, MR imaging is essential for preoperative surgical planning and is the imaging modality of choice in evaluating penile prostheses. The added value of MRI in these settings makes it an integral component to the management of many pathological entities affecting the penis.

An update on the best approaches to prevent complications in penile prosthesis recipients

Placement of inflatable penile prosthesis is a procedure frequently performed for medication-refractory erectile dysfunction. Device implantation is not without risks, and as the frequency of device implantation increases, so do associated complications. The aim of this work is to review the most frequent operative complications associated with implantation of inflatable penile prostheses, and to review the best approaches to prevent these most common complications. Complications can broadly be categorized as infectious, noninfectious tissue-related, device-related, or related to patient and partner satisfaction. With understanding of these complications and ways to avoid them, as well as with appropriate patient selection and counseling, the inflatable penile prosthesis is an excellent option for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.

Inflatable Penile Prostheses Implantation: Does Antibiotic Exposure Matter?

Background

Inflatable penile prosthetic (IPP) infections are unusual but carry high patient morbidity and healthcare costs.

Aim

To increase the bactericidal effect of IPP tubing material to prevent future bacterial infections and to determine whether this effect is time-dependent.

Methods

A modified disk diffusion assay was developed to measure the zones of inhibition against Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Staphylococcus epidermidis when tubing was immersed in gentamycin, ampicillin, tetracycline, kanamycin, erythromycin, or ciprofloxacin. To further assess the efficacy of this approach, IPP tubing was exposed to ampicillin or ciprofloxacin for 30 seconds, 2 minutes, 10 minutes, or 60 minutes.

Outcomes

Bacterial zones of inhibition against IPP tubing material exposed to various treatments.

Results

IPP tubing was more effective against Gram-positive bacteria (S aureus and S epidermidis) then Gram-negative bacteria (E coli and P mirabilis). Immersing IPP tubing material in ampicillin or ciprofloxacin increased bactericidal effect of tubing material against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, respectively. The observed inhibitory effect was time dependent.

Clinical Translation

Exposing IPP to a specific antimicrobial directly before implantation increases the bactericidal properties of the material, potentially decreasing the likelihood of infection.

Strengths & Limitations

This study is limited in that it is in vitro experimentation observing the effect of a single strain of each bacterium. Although the strains used were clinically relevant, further analysis is required to determine whether these results were strain specific.

Conclusion

Immersing IPP material into an antibiotic solution, such as ampicillin or ciprofloxacin, increases the bactericidal properties and may aid in the prevention of infection.

Chanyi RM, Alzubaidi R, Leung EJY, Wilcox HB, Brock GB, Burton JP. Inflatable Penile Prostheses Implantation: Does Antibiotic Exposure Matter? Sex Med 2018;6;248–254.

Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation: are malleable prostheses an appropriate treatment option in patients with erectile dysfunction caused by prior radical surgery?

The aim of our study was to evaluate the outcome of penile prosthesis implantation in patients with various comorbidities as a cause of erectile dysfunction (ED). The data of 181 patients who underwent surgery between 1998 and 2012 in two centers were evaluated. The mean age of the patients was 52.2 years (range: 31-71 years). The study group contained 162 patients (89.5%) with malleable prostheses and 19 (10.5%) with inflatable implants. All patients were re-evaluated 1 month later to assess prosthesis function and complications, and further re-examinations were performed if needed. Satisfaction was defined as having satisfactory intercourse and happiness with the device in general. The follow-up period was at least 12 months for each patient. The postoperative complication rate was 32% (n = 58). The number of complications with inflatable and malleable prostheses was 7 (3.9%) and 51 (28.1%), respectively. Overall, 21 prostheses (11.6%) had to be removed because of various complications and patient dissatisfaction. Patients with prior radical surgery had higher extraction rates (ƛ = 14.606, P < 0.05, Chi-square test). The main reasons for removal were erosion (n = 11; 6.1%) and infection (n = 3; 2.1%). With respect to satisfaction during intercourse, we found that 104 (57.5%) patients described themselves as very satisfied with the prosthesis, while 21 (11.6%) were unsatisfied. The high explantation rate in patients with prior surgery was remarkable in our study. Our results revealed that a malleable prosthesis should not be the preferred type of implant for patients with prior surgery.

Medical pre-operative considerations for patients undergoing penile implantation

Penile prosthesis surgery has become the standard treatment for patients with erectile dysfunction refractory to medical management. Refinements in the both the surgical technique and device manufacturing have made this a safe and reliable treatment with excellent patient satisfaction. In this review, we will overview the basic medical and pre-operative considerations for patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation. We intend to provide a simple and practical checklist for the implanter to reference when considering implantation of a penile prosthesis.

Preoperative counseling and expectation management for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation

The inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the gold standard surgical treatment for medical refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). While the modern IPP has enjoyed high satisfaction rates as a product of its continued innovation, reliability, and performance, patient dissatisfaction can still occur. IPP implantation restores physiologic function with cosmetic and psychological consequences, both of which place inherent emphasis on preoperative counseling and expectation management. This review aims to highlight the complex nature of such counseling and provide practitioners with a roadmap to navigate the landscape. Preoperative counseling begins with appropriate patient selection and identification of those patients who are at risk for dissatisfaction as a result of personality characteristics. The informed consent provides a natural framework to discuss the host of complications and risks that are associated with surgery, including infection, device malfunction, damage to nearby structures, and device erosion. Device selection is a nuanced process that merges patient preference with clinical factors and consideration. We address device selection through a description of cylinder construction, pump design, and reservoir placement in the context of preoperative counseling. Lastly, we draw attention to expectation management with a specific focus on possible post-operative changes to penile length and sensation as well as partner involvement. The modern IPP provides excellent results with high patient and partner satisfaction. Ultimately, satisfaction is dependent on multiple factors, but providing accurate, realistic counseling and expectation management prepares patients for the best possible outcomes.

Local Treatment of Penile Prosthesis Infection as Alternative to Immediate Salvage Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Penile prosthesis (PP) is the established treatment for patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) who do not respond to phosphodiesterase inhibitors and intracavernosal injections. In general, these devices have been largely successful but there are not free of serious complication such as PP infection (PPI). PPI requires immediate surgical removal or salvage rescue of the PP.

AIM

In this report, we present two clinical cases with inflatable PP (IPP) treated locally with antibiotic and high pressure irrigation and then avoid the PP removal or salvage rescue.

METHODS

We present two patients with PPI in our institution and literature review.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Resolution of the two cases.

RESULTS

Patient A (A) was 44 years old and patient B (B) 51 years old presented PPI after three weeks (A) and eight weeks (B). Both patients were diabetic. Physical exploration revealed an open scrotal incision at its margin with a clear discharge. The rest of the incision and scrotum were clean and dry. They had not scrotum pain/tenderness or systemic/septic symptoms. The bacterial culture of the incisional drainage revealed a Staphylococcus aureus (A) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (B). In both cases, we performed an excision of the tissue around the pump with a high pressure pulsed irrigation (Interpulse; Stryker Corp, Kalamazoo, MI, USA). For the irrigation we used three different solutions that included povidone-iodine, antibiotics (gentamicin plus vancomicin), and hydrogen peroxyde. Finally, we performed a multilayered surgical closure with the use of aspirate drainage over 24 hours and intravenous antibiotics. The patients had a total resolution of its symptoms after 20 months (A) and 36 months (B), and the IPP worked properly.

CONCLUSION

This treatment could be an option for to perform specific patients with local IPP infection without systemic symptoms instead of surgical removal.

Penile Prosthesis Surgery: Current Recommendations From the International Consultation on Sexual Medicine

INTRODUCTION

Penile prosthesis implantation has emerged as a definitive treatment to restore sexual function to the motivated man with erectile dysfunction. Substantial improvements in the design of inflatable devices have been made since they first became available more than four decades ago.

AIM

To review the history of the penile prosthesis, the indications, preoperative evaluation, and patient and partner satisfaction. The current approaches to addressing intra- and postoperative complications, provide an understanding of prosthesis infection, and placement of these devices will be reviewed.

METHODS

A committee of worldwide experts in this field was assembled during the 2015 International Consultation on Sexual Medicine (ICSM) and performed a systematic review of the peer-reviewed published medical literature pertaining to penile prosthesis. Particular attention was given to higher level trials when available. Recommendations are based upon the Oxford Criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Unfortunately there is limited level 1 and 2 evidence, and where expert opinion was utilized, the decision was unanimous within the committee with a goal of presenting a clinically relevant guideline pertaining to penile prostheses.

RESULTS

Penile prosthesis has undergone an evolution over the past 40 years resulting in a more effective and reliable treatment for advanced erectile dysfunction not responding to less invasive methods including oral treatment with PDE5 inhibitors, vacuum erection device, and intracorporal injection therapy. It should be considered an appropriate treatment option for the man who wishes to restore erectile function and who understands the potential risk of mechanical failure and infection, both of which are less common now as a result of improvements made in device design as well as surgical protocols adhered to in the operating room. Patients must be clearly informed of the risks associated with penile prosthesis including mechanical failure, infection, shortening of the penis, change in sensation and configuration of the penis, as well as injury to local structures. Intraoperative complications are unusual but do occur and can usually be addressed intraoperatively to allow placement of the device at the time of initial surgery. Postoperative complications may also be addressed when they occur but may require more advanced reconstructive surgical techniques. Men with Peyronie's disease, corporal fibrosis due to infection, trauma, prior prosthesis explantation, priapism, and men who have undergone construction of a neophallus may require additional advanced maneuvers to obtain optimum results with a penile prosthesis.

CONCLUSION

Penile prosthesis remains as an important, viable, and effective treatment for male erectile dysfunction that does not respond to other less invasive approaches or when these approaches are contraindicated or not acceptable to the patient. These devices provide the patient with the ability to engage in penetrative sexual activity without interfering with urination, ejaculation, sensation, or orgasm. Although mechanical failure can occur, the current devices are more reliable as a result of design modifications. Infection remains the most dreaded complication but since the introduction of antibiotic and hydrophilic coatings, infection is less common. Overall, patient and partner satisfaction appear to be reasonably high when a penile prosthesis is used to restore erectile function.

Scrotal Abscess Precipitating Late Infection of a Malleable Penile Prosthesis: The Risk Never Evanesces

Although infrequent, infections represent the dreadful complication of penile prosthesis implantation. The incidence substantially decreases after a few infection-free postoperative months. We report herein a case of a very late penile prosthesis infection from a fistualizing scrotal abscess in a 67-year-old man. The patient presented with a one-month history of persistent penile-base discharge from a right hemiscrotal swelling. On examination, mild penile tenderness and a discharging penoscrotal-junction sinus were noted. Microbiological wound culture was positive for Staphylococcus epidermidis. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed this multiloculated fluid collection's communication with the right corporal body. Removal of the prosthesis was performed. Pathological evaluation of the dissected fistula was suggestive of acute on top of chronic inflammatory reactions. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a scrotal abscess leading to penile prosthesis infection 15 years after an uneventful implantation.

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.

Staphylococcus aureus infections: epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management

Staphylococcus aureus is a major human pathogen that causes a wide range of clinical infections. It is a leading cause of bacteremia and infective endocarditis as well as osteoarticular, skin and soft tissue, pleuropulmonary, and device-related infections. This review comprehensively covers the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management of each of these clinical entities. The past 2 decades have witnessed two clear shifts in the epidemiology of S. aureus infections: first, a growing number of health care-associated infections, particularly seen in infective endocarditis and prosthetic device infections, and second, an epidemic of community-associated skin and soft tissue infections driven by strains with certain virulence factors and resistance to β-lactam antibiotics. In reviewing the literature to support management strategies for these clinical manifestations, we also highlight the paucity of high-quality evidence for many key clinical questions.

Penile lengthening and widening without grafting according to a modified 'sliding' technique

OBJECTIVE

To present the feasibility and safety of penile length and girth restoration based on a modified 'sliding' technique for patients with severe erectile dysfunction (ED) and significant penile shortening, with or without Peyronie's disease (PD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2013 and January 2014, 143 patients underwent our modified 'sliding' technique for penile length and girth restoration and concomitant penile prosthesis implantation. It is based on three key elements: (i) the sliding manoeuvre for penile length restoration; (ii) potential complementary longitudinal ventral and/or dorsal tunical incisions for girth restoration; and (iii) closure of the newly created rectangular bow-shaped tunical defects with Buck's fascia only.

RESULTS

In all, 143 patients underwent the procedure. The causes of penile shortening and narrowing were: PD in 53.8%; severe ED with unsuccessful intracavernosal injection therapy in 21%; post-radical prostatectomy 14.7%; androgen-deprivation therapy, with or without brachytherapy or external radiotherapy, for prostate cancer in 7%; post-penile fracture in 2.1%; post-redo-hypospadias repair in 0.7%; and post-priapism in 0.7%. In patients with ED and PD, the mean (range) deviation of the penile axis was 45 (0-100)°. The mean (range) subjective penile shortening reported by patients was 3.4 (1-7) cm and shaft constriction was present in 53.8%. Malleable penile prostheses were used in 133 patients and inflatable penile prostheses were inserted in 10 patients. The median (range) follow-up was 9.7 (6-18) months. The mean (range) penile length gain was 3.1 (2-7) cm. No penile prosthesis infection caused device explantation. The average International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score increased from 24 points at baseline to 60 points at the 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Penile length and girth restoration based on our modified sliding technique is a safe and effective procedure. The elimination of grafting saves operative time and, consequently, decreases the infection risk and costs associated with surgery.