Literature DB >> 1732600

Use of glycosylated hemoglobin to identify diabetics at high risk for penile periprosthetic infections.

J R Bishop1, J W Moul, S A Sihelnik, D S Peppas, T S Gormley, D G McLeod.   

Abstract

We report an 18-month prospective study of 90 patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation to evaluate a possible cause-and-effect relationship between degree of diabetic control and the risk of infection complicating the operation. Long-term diabetic control was objectively evaluated by measurement of the glycosylated hemoglobin of the patient, which is known to provide an objective value for degree of control for the preceding 60 to 90 days. Of 90 patients 5 (5.5%) had a periprosthetic infection requiring explantation and all infections occurred in the 32 diabetics (36%) in the population (p less than 0.009). Of the 32 diabetics 13 (41.1%) were poorly controlled with time as demonstrated by a glycosylated hemoglobin level of greater than 11.5% and 4 of the infections occurred in this group. Of the 19 remaining controlled diabetics (glycosylated hemoglobin level less than 11.5%) only 1 infection occurred. Therefore, infection occurred in 31% of the poorly controlled versus 5% of the adequately controlled patients (p less than 0.0003). Measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin values appears to be a useful tool to evaluate diabetic patients before implantation of a penile prosthesis. Patients with a glycosylated hemoglobin level of 11.5% or greater should be more optimally controlled before undergoing implantation in an effort to avoid infectious complications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1732600     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37244-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  26 in total

1.  Penile implant infections: prevention and treatment.

Authors:  John J Mulcahy
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Current approach to the treatment of penile implant infections.

Authors:  John J Mulcahy
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2010-04

Review 3.  Minimizing Penile Implant Infection: A Literature Review of Patient and Surgical Factors.

Authors:  Bradley Holland; Tobias Kohler
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Penile prosthesis infection: progress in prevention and treatment.

Authors:  John J Mulcahy
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 5.  A comparative review of the options for treatment of erectile dysfunction: which treatment for which patient?

Authors:  Konstantinos Hatzimouratidis; Dimitrios G Hatzichristou
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 6.  Infection Prevention Considerations for Complex Penile Prosthesis Recipients.

Authors:  Robert J Carrasquillo; Ricardo M Munarriz; Martin S Gross
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection.

Authors:  M Cakan; F Demirel; O Karabacak; F Yalçinkaya; U Altuğ
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 8.  Surgical management of erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  Aaron J Milbank; Drogo K Montague
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.633

Review 9.  How to treat erectile dysfunction in men with diabetes: from pathophysiology to treatment.

Authors:  Konstantinos Hatzimouratidis; Dimitrios Hatzichristou
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 4.810

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

Authors:  Alejandro Carvajal; Johana Benavides; Herney Andrés García-Perdomo; Gerard D Henry
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 2.896

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.