Infection Prevention Considerations for Complex Penile Prosthesis Recipients
- 21 Downloads
Purpose of Review
The purpose of this review is to critically analyze and summarize recent studies in the area of penile prosthesis surgery outcomes with a focus on infection prevention in high-risk patients.
Reduction of surgical time in complex prosthesis surgery may reduce infection risk. Concomitant implant surgery is not associated with increased infection risk. Certain immunocompromised patients may be more likely to have penile implant infections, but these may not include patients with well-controlled HIV, well-controlled diabetes, or transplant recipients. Substance abuse is correlated with increased risk of infection after penile implant surgery. Careful patient selection and preoperative optimization can reduce infection risk in spinal cord injury patients.
In the last 5 years, there have been several important studies investigating the risk of penile prosthesis infection in complex patients, clarifying which patient categories are at increased risk and how that risk can be mitigated.
KeywordsPenile prosthesis Penile prosthesis infection Diabetes Biofilm Erectile dysfunction Revision surgery
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Robert J. Carrasquillo and Ricardo M. Munarriz each declare no potential conflicts of interest.
Martin S. Gross is a consultant and investigator for Coloplast.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 7.• Mirheydar H, Zhou T, Chang DC, Hsieh TC. Reoperation rates for penile prosthetic surgery. J Sex Med. 2016;13(1):129–33. This larger longitudinal study identified patient groups with increased rates of penile prosthesis reoperation and called to attention deficiencies in our ability to capture complications data. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.•• Balen A, Gross MS, Phillips EA, Henry GD, Munarriz R. Active polysubstance abuse concurrent with surgery as a possible newly identified infection risk factor in inflatable penile prosthesis placement based on a retrospective analysis of health and socioeconomic factors. J Sex Med. 2016;13(4):697–701. This is the only studied published to date that specifically analyzes and identifies polysubstance abuse as a risk factor for penile prosthesis infection. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.•• Li K, Brandes ER, Chang SL, Leow JJ, Chung BI, Wang Y, et al. Trends in penile prosthesis implantation and analysis of predictive factors for removal. World J Urol. 2018. This large cross-sectional database study identified HIV-positive status as a risk factor for penile prosthesis infection . Google Scholar
- 14.•• Habous M, Tal R, Tealab A, Soliman T, Nassar M, Mekawi Z, et al. Defining a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level that predicts increased risk of penile implant infection. BJU Int. 2018;121(2):293–300. This multicenter prospective study confirmed that poorly controlled diabetes is a more specific risk factor for penile implant infection and identified a hemoglobin A1C threshold above which the risk increased significantly. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Wilson SC, Delk JI. Hematoma formation following penile prosthesis implantation: to drain or not to drain. J Urol. 1996;55:634A.Google Scholar
- 20.•• Gross MS, Phillips EA, Carrasquillo RJ, Thornton A, Greenfield JM, Levine LA, et al. Multicenter investigation of the micro-organisms involved in penile prosthesis infection: an analysis of the efficacy of the AUA and EAU guidelines for penile prosthesis prophylaxis. J Sex Med. 2017;14(3):455–63. This larger multicenter study examined the flora culture in salvage procedures and revealed the increasing importance of anaerobes and fungal pathogens in penile prosthesis infections. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.•• Segal RL, Cabrini MR, Harris ED, Mostwin JL, Bivalacqua TJ, Burnett AL. Combined inflatable penile prosthesis-artificial urinary sphincter implantation: no increased risk of adverse events compared to single or staged device implantation. J Urol. 2013;190(6):2183–8. This large study of combined surgery for penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter identified no increased risk of prosthesis infection compared to single implant surgery. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Sendi P, Banderet F, Graber P, Zimmerli W. Periprosthetic joint infection following Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. J Inf Secur. 2011;63(1):17–22.Google Scholar
- 34.•• Sun AY, Babbar P, Gill BC, Angermeier KW, Montague DK. Penile prosthesis in solid organ transplant recipients-a matched cohort study. Urology. 2018;117:86–8. This controlled study demonstrated that transplant recipients are not at increased risk of penile prosthesis infection compared to non-transplant patients despite immunosuppression.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar