Introduction Penile prosthesis infections remain challenging despite advancements in surgical technique, device improvements, and adoption of antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines. Aim To investigate penile prosthesis infection microbiology to consider which changes in practice could decrease infection rates, to evaluate current antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines, and to develop a proposed algorithm for penile prosthesis infections. Methods This retrospective institutional review board–exempt multi-institutional study from 25 centers reviewed intraoperative cultures obtained at explantation or Mulcahy salvage of infected three-piece inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs). Antibiotic usage was recorded at implantation, admission for infection, and explantation or salvage surgery. Cultures were obtained from purulent material in the implant space and from the biofilm on the device. Main Outcome Measures Intraoperative culture data from infected IPPs. Results Two hundred twenty-seven intraoperative cultures (2002–2016) were obtained at salvage or explantation. No culture growth occurred in 33% of cases and gram-positive and gram-negative organisms were found in 73% and 39% of positive cultures, respectively. Candida species (11.1%), anaerobes (10.5%) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (9.2%) constituted nearly one third of 153 positive cultures. Multi-organism infections occurred in 25% of positive cultures. Antibiotic regimens at initial implantation were generally consistent with American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. However, the micro-organisms identified in this study were covered by these guidelines in only 62% to 86% of cases. Antibiotic selection at admissions for infection and salvage or explantation varied widely compared with those at IPP implantation. Conclusion This study documents a high incidence of anaerobic, Candida, and methicillin-resistant S aureus infections. In addition, approximately one third of infected penile prosthesis cases had negative cultures. Micro-organisms identified in this study were not covered by the AUA and EAU antibiotic guidelines in at least 14% to 38% of cases. These findings suggest broadening antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines and creating a management algorithm for IPP infections might lower infection rates and improve salvage success.

Introduction Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery is a successful therapeutic option for men with erectile dysfunction. Traditional placement of the reservoir in the retropubic space of Retzius is associated with the rare occurrence of significant complications including bladder, bowel, and vascular injury. An alternative site, posterior to the abdominal wall musculature, has been identified as a potentially safer location for reservoir placement. Aims The aim of this study was to describe our technique of abdominal reservoir placement during infrapubic IPP surgery and present our outcomes data. Methods We retrospectively reviewed our experience with abdominal reservoir placement during virgin IPP cases. Reservoirs placed anterior and posterior to transversalis fascia were analyzed separately. Main Outcome Measure The main outcome measures was assessment of reservoir-related complications including palpable reservoir, reservoir herniation, and injuries to bowel, bladder, or major blood vessels. Results There were no injuries to bowel or major blood vessels with abdominal reservoir placement posterior or anterior to the transversalis fascia in properly segregated patients. Conclusion Abdominal reservoir placement is a safe and simple surgical method that can be recommended for most men undergoing IPP placement. Men with a history of pelvic surgery can have the reservoir placed between the rectus abdominis musculature and transversalis fascia, while other men can have the reservoir placed between transversalis fascia and peritoneum in order to avoid a palpable reservoir. By applying this protocol, the catastrophic injuries that occur rarely with retropubic reservoir placement can be reliably avoided.

No abstract

Few studies have examined the roles of dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) and penile ring block (PRB) in surgery of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement. We sought to compare the postoperative pain outcomes of two different medications used in DPNB plus PRB. We thus carried out a prospective study of patients with erectile dysfunction who underwent "de novo" IPP placement between January 2013 and June 2013. Patients were divided to one of three groups: 1-DPNB plus PRB with bupivacaine injection; 2-DPNB plus PRB with ropivacaine injection and, 3-Control group without DPNB or PRB injection. Postoperative pain score and pain medication usage were recorded 2 h postoperatively, and every 24 h, for a week. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used as pain scale measurement. A total of 131 patients were included in this study: 40 to bupivacaine, 47 to ropivacaine, and the rest were controls. Two hours postoperatively, mean VAS was significantly different (p < 0.0001) between medicated patients and the control group, however, no significant differences were observed between medication groups. Mean VAS was not significantly different among the groups from post-surgical day 2 thru 7. In conclusion, DPNB plus PRB during IPP provided effective analgesia in the immediate post-operative recovery.