Infections Associated with Inflatable Penile Prostheses

Mohajer, Mayar Al; Darouiche, Rabih O.

doi:10.1002/smrj.30

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering a baseline infection rate of 3%, it is estimated that a prospective study would require about 3 thousand patients to show a 50% reduction on infection rate or 34 thousand patients to show a 25% reduction [32]. It is also difficult to propose a trial to compare coated and uncoated implants when the available evidence suggest the superiority of the coated ones, which could bring ethical issues to the trial [33]. This is the most extensive review about penile prosthesis infection to our knowledge, including references from 10 databases, which brings information from the current scenario of penile prosthesis infection and gathers enough data to perform the first meta-analysis about the role of DM in penile prosthesis infection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of penile prosthesis infection and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus role

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Infection is the most feared complication of a penile prosthesis. Diabetes mellitus (DM) is widely known to increase the risk of several infections, but its role in the penile prosthesis is still controversial. This systematic review aims to show the contemporary scenario of penile prosthesis infection and present a meta-analysis about DM contribution to penile prosthesis infection. Methods The review was performed with no language or time limitation, including ten databases. The included articles were about the male population who received a penile prosthesis with no model restriction, with a minimum follow up of 1 year, and outcomes adequately reported. Results The mean infection incidence of penile prosthesis ranged from 0.33 to 11.4%. In early 2000, the general incidence of infection was 3 to 5%, then, the introduction of coated materials decreased it to 0.3 to 2.7%. The meta-analysis showed that diabetes mellitus is related to an increased risk of penile prosthesis infection with an odds ratio of 1.53 (95% CI 1.15–2.04). Conclusions Penile prosthesis infection decreased in the last decades but remains a significant cause of reoperation, and it is related to lower prosthesis survival. Meta-analysis concludes that diabetes mellitus is related to a higher risk of penile prosthesis infection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of penile prosthesis infection and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus role

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considering a baseline infection rate of 3%, it is estimated that a prospective study would need about 3 thousand patients to show a 50% reduction on infection rate, or 34370 patients to show a 25% reduction (33). One can also consider the available evidence about coated materials superiority which could bring ethical issues to a trial (34). This is the largest revision about penile prosthesis infection to date, including references from 10 databases, which brings information from the current scenario of penile prosthesis infection and gather enough data to perform the first meta-analysis about diabetes mellitus role on penile prosthesis infection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of penile prosthesis infection and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus role

Gon

Campos

Voris

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Infection is the most feared complication of penile prosthesis. Diabetes mellitus is a well known to increase risk of several kinds of infection, but its role upon penile prosthesis is not defined. The aim of this systematic review is to show the contemporary scenario of penile prosthesis infection and perform a meta-analysis about diabetes mellitus contribution to penile prosthesis infection. Methods: the review was performed with no language or time limitation, in 10 data bases. There were included articles about male population who received a penile prosthesis with no model restriction, with a minimum follow up of one year and proper outcomes report. Results: The mean incidence of infection after penile prosthesis implant ranged from 0.33 to 11.4%. In early 2000, after several improvements, the general incidence of infection was 3 to 5%. Then, the introduction of coated materials decreased infection to 0.3 to 2.7% . Also, no touch technique and centers of reference with high volume surgeons contributed to reduce infection rates. Meta-analysis showed that diabetes mellitus increases penile prosthesis infection with odds ratio of 1.56 (95% CI: 1.12 - 2.044). Conclusions: Penile prosthesis infection decreased in the last decades, but remains an important cause of reoperation and it is related to lower prosthesis survival. Meta-analysis concludes that diabetes mellitus increases penile prosthesis infection and it should be considered as a risk factor.

show abstract

“…The most commonly reported organisms that result in IPPs are coagulase negative skin flora organisms (80%), most commonly Gram-positive Staphylococcus epidermidis, while the rest are Gram-negative organisms, including but not limited to, Proteus, Escherichia coli, Serrata, and Pseudomonas spp. The source of these organisms is either the patient's skin or from the scrubbed surgical staff including the surgeons and handlers of the prosthesis [4,[17][18][19][20].…”

Section: Biofilms and Causative Micro-organisms For Infection Of Ppsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infected penile prosthesis: literature review highlighting the status quo of prevention and management

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Erectile dysfunction affects over 50% of men 70 years and above, and penile prosthesis (PP) is its third-line treatment. Complications of PPs include infection, however, no formal guidelines exist for its management. Methods: We performed a literature search and reviewed 53 recent published literatures of experiences with management of PP infections, prevention, and treatment. Results: Acute infection can present early with pain and discharge and detection of early signs is of utmost importance. MRI studies are more sensitive than CT studies to diagnose and plan surgical intervention. Introduction of antibiotic impregnated devices attributed to the reduction of infection rates with superiority proven for certain types; the no-touch technique had further reduced this rate. The Mulcahy salvage remains the most widely used surgical approach for treatment despite modifications and novel techniques described; conservative management of PP infections is recently reported with promising results. Conclusions: Despite absence of strict guidelines for the management of infected PPs, we reviewed and discussed numerous panel opinions and suggestions throughout literature. More research into the pathology, prevention, conservative management and advances in surgical treatment of this condition are called for to produce guidelines that unite the efforts to tackle these infections.

show abstract

Infections Associated with Inflatable Penile Prostheses

Cited by 10 publications

References 63 publications

A systematic review of penile prosthesis infection and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus role

A systematic review of penile prosthesis infection and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus role

Systematic review of penile prosthesis infection and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus role

Infected penile prosthesis: literature review highlighting the status quo of prevention and management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About