Is Hba1c level of diabetic patients associated with penile prosthesis implantation infections?

Management of Infections Associated with Penile Prostheses and Artificial Urinary Sphincters

Prosthetic urology can substantially enhance the quality of life for patients. However, it is not without challenges. Infections of penile prostheses and artificial urinary sphincters are often difficult to diagnose, manage, and treat. Over time, device improvements, refined surgical methods, better understanding of microbiology, and biofilms in combination with higher sterility standards and protocols, have significantly reduced the rates of infection. Here, the authors offer a comprehensive overview of prosthetic urologic infections and their management in the current era.

Preoperative hemoglobin A1c and perioperative blood glucose in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing spinal cord stimulation surgery: A literature review of surgical site infection risk

AIMS

The aim of our study was to review the surgical literature regarding the relationship between hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM), and risk of postoperative surgical site infection (SSI).

METHODS

A librarian-assisted literature search was performed with two goals: (1) identify surgical publications related to SSI and HbA1c values, and (2) identify publications reporting infection risk with DM in spinal cord stimulation (SCS), intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS), and cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation surgeries. Published guidelines on perioperative management of DM are reviewed.

RESULTS

We identified 30 studies reporting SSI and HbA1c values. The literature review indicated that for many surgical procedures, elevated HbA1c is not correlated to rate of SSI. We identified 16 studies reporting infection rates within DM cohorts following SCS, IDDS, and CIED implantation surgeries. The data reviewed did not indicate DM as an independent risk factor for SSI.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative HbA1c levels in patients with a history of DM is not a singularly sufficient tool to estimate risk of perioperative infection in SCS implantation surgery. Published guidelines on perioperative management of DM do not suggest a specific HbA1c above which surgery should be delayed; intentional perioperative glycemic control is recommended.

Is Elevated Hba1c Level Associated with Achilles Tendon Contracture Development in Diabetic Foot Patients?

INTRODUCTION

Chronic hyperglycemia can increase extracellular matrix (ECM) accumulation that leads to tendon fibrosis and subsequent contracture. Considering the reversibility of fibrosis, it is important to identify factors that are associated with it. The purpose of this study was to determine whether elevated HbA1c levels are associated with the development of Achilles tendon contracture in diabetes mellitus patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed 206 patients with diabetic foot problems between January 2015-December 2019. Demographic data, the presence of Achilles tendon contracture, and laboratory results were documented and statistically analysed between patients with contracture and without contracture.

RESULTS

Patients' mean age was 58.46 ± 6.67 years old. Contracture was found in 84 out of 206 patients (40.78%) patients, with female predominance (45/84 patients; 53%). While contracture was found significantly associated with sex difference (0.035) and age groups (p=0.006), there was no meaningful association with HbA1c level groups (p=0.324).

CONCLUSION

Findings do not support the use of HbA1c level as a sole determinant of Achilles tendon contracture. Seemingly, there are other confounding factors affecting the Achilles tendon contracture development in diabetes mellitus patients. It should be emphasised that albeit the association between chronic hyperglycemia and contracture development, the low HbA1c should not be overlooked as having no risk of Achilles tendon contracture and vice versa.

Tips and tricks in the management of inflatable penile prosthesis infection: A review

Objective:

To review the management of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infection.

Methods: The ‘gold-standard’ treatment for medication-refractory erectile dysfunction is the IPP, wherein the most dreaded complication is infection. To prevent and manage an infected IPP requires a strict protocol during the pre-, intra-, and postoperative course. A variety of techniques and antibiotics are used in conjunction with IPP implantation to prevent contamination. This modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) review of the literature examines the current practices by leading urologists in the management of IPP infection, as well as provides insights for improved patient outcomes.

Results

: Patient selection is important to reduce IPP infections, and those with risk factors need to be optimised prior to surgery. Proper antibiotic prophylaxis includes pre-, intra-, and postoperative administration. As most infections derive from normal skin flora, every measure must be taken to sterilise the skin and avoid direct device skin contact. Up to 3% of virgin IPPs develop infections and this number increases to 18% in revision cases. Antibiotic coverage depends on the presenting microbe, which can vary significantly between patients.

Conclusions

: A greater success in IPP implantation can be attributed to appropriate prophylaxis, field sterilisation, and surgical technique. For those implants that do become infected, often erectile function can be preserved by immediate antibiotic coverage combined with salvage procedures.

HbA1c over 8.5% is not predictive of increased infection rate following penile prosthesis implant surgery in diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction

Diabetes mellitus is associated with increased risk of erectile dysfunction. Penile prosthesis implantation is an efficient therapeutic option for erectile dysfunction, but not without risk, as infection remains a prominent concern. This study investigates diabetes mellitus as a risk factor for penile prosthesis implantation infection and the relationship between haemoglobinA1c levels and infection rates. All diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction who underwent penile prosthesis implantation surgery between January 2012 and November 2019 at Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar, were included in this retrospective observational study. A total of 599 diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction had penile prosthesis implantation. Mean age was 59.69 ± 31.19. Penile prosthesis implantation infection rate was 0.83% (5/599), while the mean haemoglobinA1c level was 7.58 ± 1.45 mmol/l (range: 4.1-12.6). A comparison between diabetic patients with penile prosthesis implantation infection and those without infection revealed no significant difference in the level of haemoglobinA1c between the two groups with mean haemoglobinA1c in patients with infected implants 7.14 and 7.59 for noninfected (p = 0.491). Limitations include retrospective single-centre design and low-infection rates reducing sample number. Penile prosthesis implantation infection rate in a large series of diabetic patients was low with no significant association between haemoglobinA1c level and penile prosthesis implantation infection observed.

A systematic review of penile prosthesis infection and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus role

Background

Infection is the most feared complication of a penile prosthesis. Diabetes mellitus (DM) is widely known to increase the risk of several infections, but its role in the penile prosthesis is still controversial. This systematic review aims to show the contemporary scenario of penile prosthesis infection and present a meta-analysis about DM contribution to penile prosthesis infection.

Methods

The review was performed with no language or time limitation, including ten databases. The included articles were about the male population who received a penile prosthesis with no model restriction, with a minimum follow up of 1 year, and outcomes adequately reported.

Results

The mean infection incidence of penile prosthesis ranged from 0.33 to 11.4%. In early 2000, the general incidence of infection was 3 to 5%, then, the introduction of coated materials decreased it to 0.3 to 2.7%. The meta-analysis showed that diabetes mellitus is related to an increased risk of penile prosthesis infection with an odds ratio of 1.53 (95% CI 1.15–2.04).

Conclusions

Penile prosthesis infection decreased in the last decades but remains a significant cause of reoperation, and it is related to lower prosthesis survival. Meta-analysis concludes that diabetes mellitus is related to a higher risk of penile prosthesis infection.

Life quality change after inflatable penile prosthesis implantation

PURPOSE

It was aimed to evaluate the changes in quality of life in patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) after inflatable penile prosthesis implantation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty-one patients who underwent to an inflatable penile prosthesis implantation surgery due to ED were included in the study. The age of the patients, the indications for surgery, and the type of prosthesis implanted were recorded. All patients were implanted two-piece inflatable (AMS Ambicor™) or three-piece inflatable (AMS 700™) prostheses. A 36-item short form (SF-36) was used to assess the life quality of patients. The scores obtained from these forms were recorded and used to compare the preoperative and postoperative quality of life of the patients.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 59.9 (38-78) years. The mean follow-up was 25.1 (12-39) months. A three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis was implanted in 11 (26.8%) of the 41 patients and the others were implanted with a two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. Average SF-36 scores were increased significantly after surgery in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Inflatable penile prosthesis implantation is one of the most satisfactory treatment methods of ED and our study shows that with this treatment the patients can be provided a significant improvement in life quality.

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.

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.

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%.

Penile implant infection prevention part 1: what is fact and what is fiction? Wilson's Workshop #9

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infections are undeniably devastating for patient and surgeon alike. While less common in this modern era, the landscape of prosthesis infection is shifting. Continued examination of risk factors for infection and re-evaluation of common practices remain critical should we aim to advance the field. Quality research on this topic is limited by several factors, among which small sample size and lack of coordinated effort pose the most precarious of challenges. Nonetheless, careful analysis of available data in conjuncture with judicious utilization of established research from other prosthetic fields can help us better grasp the issue at hand. In this review, we aim to do exactly that-to examine available evidence in an effort to discern fact from fiction. In this first part of the three part series, we aim to summarize our understanding of the pathogenesis behind prosthesis infections, explore known preoperative risk factors, and discuss intraoperative considerations for infection prevention. In the second part of this series, we will examine the game changing effect of infection retardant implant coatings. Part three of the series details postoperative prevention strategies, reviews salvage techniques, and discusses additional key considerations.

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.