Literature DB >> 22819402

Long-term infection outcomes of 3-piece antibiotic impregnated penile prostheses used in replacement implant surgery.

Ajay Nehra1, Culley C Carson, Angela K Chapin, Angela M Ginkel.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Patients who undergo device revision surgery are at higher risk for infection than virgin implant recipients. The revision rate due to virgin implant infection is statistically significantly lower for minocycline/rifampin impregnated than for nonimpregnated inflatable penile prostheses. We determined whether the frequency of infection revision events after device replacement surgery would also be lower for minocycline/rifampin impregnated inflatable penile prostheses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient information forms voluntarily submitted to AMS® after replacement inflatable penile prosthesis implantation between 2001 and 2007 were retrospectively reviewed to compare secondary infection related revision events for antibiotic impregnated vs nonimpregnated implants. Only men who received an inflatable penile prosthesis at a first recorded operation to replace a previously implanted penile prosthesis were included in the study. Life table survival analysis was done between the groups to compare infection related events resulting in a second surgical revision after replacement implantation. Survival function extrapolation was based on parametric analysis using the Weibull distribution model.
RESULTS: On life table survival analysis secondary revision due to infection was significantly less common in the minocycline/rifampin impregnated group than in the nonimpregnated group (log rank p = 0.0252). At up to 6.6 years of followup 2.5% of 9,300 men with vs 3.7% of 1,764 without an impregnated device underwent secondary revision due to infection.
CONCLUSIONS: This long-term device survival analysis provides clinical evidence of a significant decrease in infection related secondary revisions using minocycline/rifampin impregnated prostheses vs nonimpregnated inflatable penile prostheses at replacement implant surgery.
Copyright © 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22819402     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.04.116

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


  11 in total

Review 1.  Current Status for Semirigid Penile Prosthetic Devices.

Authors:  Raul E Fernandez-Crespo; Kristina Buscaino; Justin Parker; Rafael Carrion
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2021-01-09       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Significance of biofilm for the prosthetic surgeon.

Authors:  R Charles Welliver; Brittney L Hanerhoff; Gerard D Henry; Tobias S Köhler
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio as a predictor of early penile prosthesis implant infection.

Authors:  Deniz Bolat; Yusuf Kadir Topcu; Ozgu Aydogdu; Suleyman Minareci; Cetin Dincel
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  30-day adverse event rates following penile prosthesis surgery: an American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program based evaluation.

Authors:  Isaac Palma-Zamora; Akshay Sood; Ali A Dabaja
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-11

5.  Sodium Mercaptoethane Sulfonate Reduces Collagenolytic Degradation and Synergistically Enhances Antimicrobial Durability in an Antibiotic-Loaded Biopolymer Film for Prevention of Surgical-Site Infections.

Authors:  Joel Rosenblatt; Ruth A Reitzel; George M Viola; Nylev Vargas-Cruz; Jesse Selber; Issam Raad
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 6.  Modern treatment strategies for penile prosthetics in Peyronie's disease: a contemporary clinical review.

Authors:  Matthew J Ziegelmann; M Ryan Farrell; Laurence A Levine
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.285

7.  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

Review 8.  Penile implant infection prevention part II: device coatings have changed the game.

Authors:  John J Mulcahy; Tobias S Köhler; Lexiaochuan Wen; Steven K Wilson
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2020-08-07       Impact factor: 2.896

Review 9.  Narrative review of penile prosthetic implant technology and surgical results, including transgender patients.

Authors:  Michael Polchert; Brian Dick; Omer Raheem
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-06

10.  Non-infected penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery; comparison between antibiotic coated and non - coated devices.

Authors:  Seyfettin Ciftci; Tijen Nemut; Mustafa Melih Culha; Hasan Yilmaz; Murat Ustuner; Ufuk Yavuz; Levend Ozkan; Aynur Karadenizli; Sadi Turkan
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2016 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.541

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.