Literature DB >> 29795529

Infection risk of undergoing multiple penile prostheses: an analysis of referred patient surgical histories.

Brian D Montgomery1, Derek J Lomas1, Matthew J Ziegelmann1, Landon W Trost2.   

Abstract

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the gold standard for medically refractory erectile dysfunction. Infectious complications remain a significant concern in IPP revision surgery. We sought to evaluate the impact of number of IPP surgeries on subsequent infection rates. A retrospective analysis was performed on all new patients (self or outside provider referred) presenting for consideration of IPP revision or salvage surgery between 2013 and 2015. Histories were reviewed including number of prior IPPs, reason for evaluation, and rate, number, and timing of prior IPP infections. No patients were operated on by the primary investigator prior to data acquisition. We identified 44 patients with at least one prior IPP presenting for consultation regarding IPP revision/salvage. There were 88 IPPs placed by 28 different surgeons. In patients with two or more devices, 55% had at least two different surgeons. The most common reason for presentation was malfunction (52%). The risk of specific device infection was strongly correlated and increased based on number of prior IPPs: 1st (6.8%; 3/44), 2nd (18.2%; 4/22), 3rd (33.3%; 4/12), 4th (50%; 4/8), and 5th (100%; 2/2) (R2 = 0.90, p = 0.01). Similarly, overall rates of infection positively correlated with number of prior IPP-related surgeries performed (R2 = 0.97, p < 0.01). The median time to development of infection after most recent IPP surgery was 2 months (IQR 1-3.3 months). Infection rates of revision/salvage IPP surgery increase with each subsequent IPP placement or following IPP-related surgeries. The majority of patients referred for penile implant surgery can expect to have experienced at least one infection by their 4th device. These data represent a change in paradigm on revision prosthetic surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29795529     DOI: 10.1038/s41443-018-0026-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Impot Res        ISSN: 0955-9930            Impact factor:   2.896


  6 in total

Review 1.  Optimizing Outcomes in the Virgin Penile Implant Patient.

Authors:  Charles Welliver
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-02-07       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Surgical tips in difficult penile prosthetic surgery: a narrative review.

Authors:  Nicolò Schifano; Paolo Capogrosso; Onur Omer Cakir; Federico Dehò; Giulio Garaffa
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2022-10-19       Impact factor: 2.408

3.  Long-term outcomes after penile prosthesis placement for the Management of Erectile Dysfunction: a single-Centre experience.

Authors:  Valentine Frydman; Ugo Pinar; Maher Abdessater; William Akakpo; Pietro Grande; Marie Audouin; Pierre Mozer; Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler; Thomas Seisen; Morgan Roupret
Journal:  Basic Clin Androl       Date:  2021-03-04

Review 4.  Penile implant infection factors: a contemporary narrative review of literature.

Authors:  Bryce A Baird; Kevin Parikh; Gregory Broderick
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-10

Review 5.  A scoping review of penile implant biofilms-what do we know and what remains unknown?

Authors:  Joon Yau Leong; Courtney E Capella; Maria J D'Amico; Selin Isguven; Caroline Purtill; Priscilla Machado; Lauren J Delaney; Gerard D Henry; Noreen J Hickok; Flemming Forsberg; Paul H Chung
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2022-08

Review 6.  Penile implant infection prevention part 1: what is fact and what is fiction? Wilson's Workshop #9.

Authors:  Tobias S Köhler; Lexiaochuan Wen; Steven K Wilson
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 2.896

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.