INTRODUCTION: When a clinically uninfected penile prosthesis has malfunctioned, removal of the broken prosthesis and simultaneous replacement with a new prosthesis is generally accepted as the treatment of choice. During prosthesis replacement, questions inevitably arise as to whether or not a washout of the implant spaces with saline or antiseptic solution should be undertaken. Since removal of the reservoir from the retropubic space is often challenging, the operating surgeon must decide whether to remove all the components or leave the reservoir in situ. AIM: To present strategies for optimal outcomes in inflatable penile prosthesis revision surgery. METHODS: We review the current literature to find evidence regarding indications and support for washout procedures, strategies to achieve the lowest infection rates, and the need for total vs. single prosthesis component removal at the time of revision surgery. For illustration, we present the case of a clinically uninfected, malfunctioning penile prosthesis that requires replacement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival from revision surgery for infection and medical complication based on published literature in peer-reviewed journals. RESULTS: Recent peer-reviewed publications were summarized for guidance in addressing the dilemmas of revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Penile prosthesis revision in a clinically uninfected patient has a higher infection rate than a first-time implantation. The combination of infection-retardant coated components, vigorous washout, proper preparation of skin incision site, use of perioperative antibiotics, and avoiding contact between the patient's skin and the implant will lower infection rates. Compared with single-component exchange, complete component removal appears to confer advantages related to future infection and malfunction. More work is needed to establish optimal strategies for handling reservoirs since clinical experience shows minimal risk of future infection in retained reservoirs.
INTRODUCTION: When a clinically uninfected penile prosthesis has malfunctioned, removal of the broken prosthesis and simultaneous replacement with a new prosthesis is generally accepted as the treatment of choice. During prosthesis replacement, questions inevitably arise as to whether or not a washout of the implant spaces with saline or antiseptic solution should be undertaken. Since removal of the reservoir from the retropubic space is often challenging, the operating surgeon must decide whether to remove all the components or leave the reservoir in situ. AIM: To present strategies for optimal outcomes in inflatable penile prosthesis revision surgery. METHODS: We review the current literature to find evidence regarding indications and support for washout procedures, strategies to achieve the lowest infection rates, and the need for total vs. single prosthesis component removal at the time of revision surgery. For illustration, we present the case of a clinically uninfected, malfunctioning penile prosthesis that requires replacement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival from revision surgery for infection and medical complication based on published literature in peer-reviewed journals. RESULTS: Recent peer-reviewed publications were summarized for guidance in addressing the dilemmas of revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Penile prosthesis revision in a clinically uninfected patient has a higher infection rate than a first-time implantation. The combination of infection-retardant coated components, vigorous washout, proper preparation of skin incision site, use of perioperative antibiotics, and avoiding contact between the patient's skin and the implant will lower infection rates. Compared with single-component exchange, complete component removal appears to confer advantages related to future infection and malfunction. More work is needed to establish optimal strategies for handling reservoirs since clinical experience shows minimal risk of future infection in retained reservoirs.
Authors: Eric Chung; Carlo Bettocchi; Paulo Egydio; Chris Love; Daniar Osmonov; Sean Park; David Ralph; Zhong Cheng Xin; Gerald Brock Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 16.430