Evaluating the Role of Postoperative Oral Antibiotic Administration in Artificial Urinary Sphincter and Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Explantation: A Nationwide Analysis

Critically Evaluating the Role for Postoperative Antibiotics in Patients Undergoing Urethroplasty With Buccal Mucosa Graft: A Claims Database Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes among patients undergoing first-time urethroplasty with buccal mucosa graft (BMG) who receive postoperative antibiotics vs those who do not.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the TriNetX claims database between 2008-2022. Using CPT, ICD10, and LOINC codes, patients >18 years old undergoing primary urethroplasty with BMG who received an outpatient prescription for antibiotics between postoperative day 0-30 or did not were queried. Patients with positive preoperative urine culture or urinary tract infection (UTI) within 30days preoperatively were excluded. Surgical outcomes included 5-year revision rates and revision-free survival. Safety outcomes included new UTI within 30days, surgical site infection within 90days, or Clostridium difficile infection within 30days of urethroplasty.

RESULTS

We identified 884 patients (81% antibiotic cohort, 19% nonantibiotic cohort) that met inclusion criteria. Age at time of urethroplasty, suprapubic tube presence, and pre-existing medical comorbidities were comparable between cohorts (Table 1A). There was no difference in 5-year rates and revision-free survival for endoscopic revision (11.5% vs 9.5%, relative risk (RR) 1.2, 95% CI [0.7, 2.0], recurrence-free survival (RFS) log-rank P = .6), re-do urethroplasty (12.9% vs 13.7%, RR 0.9, 95% CI [0.6, 1.5], RFS log-rank P = .7), or all-cause revision (19.8% vs 17.7%, RR 1.1, 95% CI [0.8, 1.6], P = .5) between groups. Postoperative rates of UTI, surgical site infection, and C difficile infection were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

In this large retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing urethroplasty with BMG, we observed no significant benefit from use of postoperative antibiotics on long-term revision rates or perioperative infectious complications.

Artificial urinary sphincter erosion and infection: a contemporary review of perioperative considerations and management

Surgical treatment options have long been a part of the treatment armamentarium in the field of male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and will continue to play an important role moving forward given the dramatic improvement they can have on a patient's quality of life and urinary tract function and control. The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is widely considered the gold standard treatment option for male SUI given its breadth of effectiveness in mild, moderate, and severe cases of SUI. As with any surgery, there are potential perioperative risks and complications that all patients must be aware of when weighing the pros and cons of different treatment options. Two of the most dreaded complications of AUS surgery are urethral cuff erosion and device infection, both necessitating a subsequent surgery for device explant. The goal of this clinical practice review article is to examine and discuss the perioperative factors and management of these complications. Effectively treating these complications is of utmost importance, not just to address the acute clinical problem for patient health and safety, but also to provide the patient with the best chance of pursuing AUS replacement surgery in the future, given that the vast majority of these patients will develop recurrent bothersome SUI after the eroded and/or infected device is removed. By reviewing pertinent patient factors, preoperative and postoperative considerations, device-specific characteristics, surgical techniques, and patient counseling, this article serves as a thorough and practical clinical review guide for practicing urologists who perform male incontinence surgery.

Delayed closed-suction drain removal following inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a multi-institutional experience

BACKGROUND

There are little published data regarding longer percutaneous drain durations following inflatable penile prosthesis placement; despite this, drain proponents suggest reduced scrotal hematoma formation, while detractors cite the risk of retrograde device seeding.

AIM

Here, we quantify the outcomes of a multi-institutional cohort with drain durations of 48 hours or greater.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively for patients undergoing primary 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement who had a postoperative drain placed. Cases were performed by 3 surgeons at 3 high-volume centers between January 1, 2020, and March 31, 2022. It was the routine practice of these surgeons to leave percutaneous drains for an interval of 48 hours or greater. R software was used to perform statistical analysis and data visualization.

OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes included rates of infection and hematoma formation. Secondary outcomes included device explantation.

RESULTS

During the study period, there were 224 patients meeting initial inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 patients had their drains removed before 48 hours, leaving 209 patients for the analysis. Mean drain duration was 67 ± 24.7 hours. The mean follow-up interval was 170 days. Diabetes mellitus was present in 84 (40%) patients with a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.2%. Penoscrotal and infrapubic approaches were employed (n = 114 [54.5%] vs n = 95 [45.5%]). Reservoir location was split between space of Retzius and high submuscular, with space of Retzius being more common (n = 164 [78.5%] vs n = 45 [21.5%]). Discrete hematomas were observed in 7 patients, with subsequent operative intervention on 2. Notably, both of these were infection cases. There were 3 (1.4%) total device infections. Revision for noninfection causes was required in 9 (4.3%) patients. Fisher's exact testing demonstrated significant association between hematoma formation and anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet therapy (P = .017). On multivariable logistic regression, only anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet therapy remained significant (P = .035).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Maintaining percutaneous closed-suction bulb drains for >48 hours following IPP placement is safe.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

This multi-institutional study fills a hole in IPP perioperative literature, as there have been no previously published data regarding drain durations >48 hours. The primary limitations are the retrospective nature and lack of a control population.

CONCLUSION

Maintaining closed-suction bulb drains for >48 hours following IPP implantation is safe and associated with infection rates comparable to other modern cohorts and a very low rate of hematoma formation.

Changes and debates in male stress urinary incontinence surgery practice patterns: a contemporary review

Surgery plays a crucial role in the definitive management of male stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The most utilized and well-studied surgical options include the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and the male sling (MS). The AUS has long been considered the "gold standard" and more versatile option in this space, showing effectiveness in mild, moderate, and severe SUI cases, whereas the MS is preferred in cases of mild to moderate SUI. Not surprisingly, and importantly, much of the published literature on male stress incontinence has focused on determining the "ideal" candidate for each procedure and identifying which clinical, device-specific, and patient factors play an important role in the objective and subjective success rates. There are, however, more granular, and sometimes debatable, topics to assess regarding the real-life practice patterns of male SUI surgery. The aim of this clinical practice review is to examine current trends of several of these topics including: AUS vs. MS utilization, the prevalence of outpatient procedures, 3.5 cm AUS cuff use, preoperative urine studies utilization, and intraoperative and postoperative antibiotics. As with many things in surgery, dogma rather than evidence-based medicine can significantly influence everyday clinical decision making. We seek to highlight which practice patterns in male SUI surgery are changing and/or being challenged and debated.

Penile implant infection factors: a contemporary narrative review of literature

Objective

We aim to review and summarize published literature that features implanted penile devices and details infection of these devices as a complication. In particular, we will detail the factors that influence infection of penile implants.

Background

Types of penile prostheses (PP) include inflatable implants and semirigid implants; these are utilized for treatment of erectile dysfunction. Likely the most feared complication of penile implants is infection. There are a handful of factors that are implicated in device infection.

Methods

Searches were performed using MEDLINE and PubMed databases using keywords and phrases ‘penile implant AND infection’; ‘penile prosthesis AND infection’; ‘penile implant infection’. We have presented results from our literature search. We divided these into ‘Surgical Elements’ and ‘Patient Selection and Factors.’ Each topic is discussed in its own section.

Conclusions

Strides have been made since the initial penile prosthesis (IPP) surgeries to improve infection rates including diabetes control, antibiotic coating of devices, and antibiotic implementation. Going forward, more studies, especially randomized control trials, need to focus on defining levels of diabetic control (sugar control and A1C control), determining the role of metabolic syndrome in infection promotion and determining laboratory values which could be predictive of infection. We present a discussion of important factors to consider in the realm of PP infections. In addition, we include studies which discuss topics for future directions in decreasing the number of infections seen with PP.

Penile implant surgery-managing complications

Penile prosthesis surgery represents the end-stage treatment for erectile dysfunction. It is conventionally used only in cases of erectile dysfunction refractory to pharmacological treatments or vacuum constriction devices. Contemporary literature suggests that penile prothesis surgery is associated with a high satisfaction rate and a low complication profile. However, it must be appreciated that the complications of surgery can have devastating consequences on a patient’s quality of life and satisfaction and include infection, prosthesis malfunction, penile corporal perforation and penile length loss. Several factors – such as appropriate patient selection, methodical preoperative assessment and patient optimization, specific intraoperative protocols and postoperative recommendations – can reduce the risk of surgical complications. This narrative review discusses the diagnosis and management of both intraoperative and postoperative complications of penile prosthesis surgery.

Optimizing Outcomes in Penile Implant Surgery

Since their initial release in the 1970s, modern penile prostheses have been subjected to continuous improvement with respect to both device engineering and surgical technique. Proper implantation begins with appropriate patient selection and counseling; these are essential elements to optimize results and set expectations postoperatively. An evidence-based protocol for the prevention of infections is essential. A pain management protocol should be initiated even before surgery. Strict adherence to recommended intraoperative techniques minimizes the risk complications; when complications occur, a step-by-step process for management improves odds of resolution. Safe techniques to increase the perceived or actual penile length postimplant can markedly improve patient satisfaction. Postoperatively, the surgeon and the patient should follow strict evidence-based instructions to optimize the overall outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery.

Tips and tricks in the management of inflatable penile prosthesis infection: A review

Objective:

To review the management of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infection.

Methods: The ‘gold-standard’ treatment for medication-refractory erectile dysfunction is the IPP, wherein the most dreaded complication is infection. To prevent and manage an infected IPP requires a strict protocol during the pre-, intra-, and postoperative course. A variety of techniques and antibiotics are used in conjunction with IPP implantation to prevent contamination. This modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) review of the literature examines the current practices by leading urologists in the management of IPP infection, as well as provides insights for improved patient outcomes.

Results

: Patient selection is important to reduce IPP infections, and those with risk factors need to be optimised prior to surgery. Proper antibiotic prophylaxis includes pre-, intra-, and postoperative administration. As most infections derive from normal skin flora, every measure must be taken to sterilise the skin and avoid direct device skin contact. Up to 3% of virgin IPPs develop infections and this number increases to 18% in revision cases. Antibiotic coverage depends on the presenting microbe, which can vary significantly between patients.

Conclusions

: A greater success in IPP implantation can be attributed to appropriate prophylaxis, field sterilisation, and surgical technique. For those implants that do become infected, often erectile function can be preserved by immediate antibiotic coverage combined with salvage procedures.

Pathophysiology and Grayscale Ultrasonography of Penile Corporal Fibrosis

INTRODUCTION

Penile corporal fibrosis may occur secondary to explantation of an infected penile prosthesis, severe penile trauma, refractory low-flow priapism, Peyronie's disease, or chronic intra-cavernous injection of vasoactive drugs. Other etiologies of corporal fibrosis, presenting primarily with erectile dysfunction, can develop in chronic smokers, hypertensive patients, alcoholics, diabetics, and after radical prostatectomy. Corporal erectile tissue fibrosis is a significant pathophysiologic component of erectile dysfunction; however, current ultrasound-based penile imaging protocols do not directly assess it.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if grayscale ultrasonography (US) is a suitable imaging modality to identify and assess penile corporal erectile tissue fibrosis.

METHODS

A PubMed literature review was performed for studies that detailed ultrasonographic methods and findings of pathologies causing penile corporal fibrosis. Our main outcome measure was the ultrasonographic findings of pathologies causing penile corporal fibrosis.

RESULTS

Grayscale US demonstrates the capability to detect and localize the fibrotic changes of the corpora cavernosa. Ultrasonographic findings capture penile corporal tissue heterogeneity including diffuse, circumscribed, or localized patterns.

CONCLUSION

Overall, grayscale US may be a useful and convenient imaging modality to assess penile corporal fibrosis secondary to explantation of an infected penile prosthesis, priapism, penile trauma, chronic intra-cavernous injection of vasoactive drugs, diabetes, Peyronie's disease, and vascular disease. While limited by the skill and knowledge of the US operator, the combined knowledge of pathophysiology and US may help clinicians identify and manage the underlying etiology of penile corporal fibrosis. Kim J, Drury R, Morenas R et al. Pathophysiology and Grayscale Ultrasonography of Penile Corporal Fibrosis. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:99-107.

Artificial Urinary Sphincter Complications: Risk Factors, Workup, and Clinical Approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review risk factors for AUS complications and present a systematic approach to their diagnosis and management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Established risk factors for AUS complications include catheterization, channel TURP, pelvic radiation, urethroplasty, anticoagulation, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, frailty index, hypertension, low albumin, and low testosterone. We present our algorithm for diagnosis and management of AUS complications. Despite being the gold standard of treatment for men with SUI, major and minor complications can occur at any point after AUS insertion. Careful consideration of the urologic, medical, and operative risk factors for each patient can help prevent complications. A systematic approach to early and late complications facilitates their identification and effective management. The evaluating urologist must have a thorough understanding of potential AUS complications in order to restore quality of life in men with bothersome SUI.

Changing Trends in Management Following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Surgery for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence: An Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the safety and practice patterns of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement on a population level. Increasingly AUS implantation has shifted to be an outpatient surgery; however, there is a lack of large-scale research evaluating factors associated with early (≤ 24 hours) versus late (>24 hours) discharges and complications in men following AUS placement. We utilized the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database to identify and compare factors and outcomes associated with each approach.

METHODS

NSQIP database was queried for men undergoing AUS placement between 2007 and 2016. Patients were classified as either early discharge (ED ≤ 24 hours) and late discharge (LD > 24 hours). Baseline demographics, operating time, and complications were compared between the 2 groups. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated factors associated with discharge timing and 30-day complications.

RESULTS

A total of 1176 patients were identified and were classified as ED in 232 and LD in 944 patients. Operative time was shorter in ED (83 minutes) compared to LD (95 minutes, P < .001). Hypertension was more prevalent among LD patients (60.3% vs 69.1% for ED and LD respectively, P < .001). The 30-day complication rate was similar in both groups (ED: 4.3% vs LD: 3.4%, P = .498). Multivariable analysis revealed that surgery after 2012 was associated with ED (OR = 3.66, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

At the national level, there are no differences in postoperative morbidity between early and late discharges. There is a trend toward more ED, specifically after 2012. A prospective study on the feasibility and safety of outpatient AUS is needed.

Antibiotics and Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Insertion: A Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Antibiotic stewardship is now a priority for the urologic community. Perioperative antibiotic use at the time of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) insertion has become a topic of interest.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature available to inform the practice of antibiotic administration before, during, and after IPP insertion.

METHODS

We performed a literature review based on a search for the terms "Antibiotics" and "Penile Prosthesis" in the PubMed database. Manuscripts were individually reviewed for relevance to the administration of antibiotics in conjunction with IPP insertion. Best practice statements and guidelines from stakeholder organizations were also reviewed.

RESULTS

The benefits of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis have been well studied in the orthopedic and general surgery literature, but a dearth of studies are available in the specific context of IPP insertion. High-quality retrospective studies have demonstrated reduced infection rates with the use of antibiotic-impregnated or antibiotic-coated IPPs. Limited research on the use of postoperative antibiotics after IPP insertion has actually not demonstrated a benefit from this very common practice. Indeed, the broader surgical literature suggests a net harm from continued postoperative antibiosis. A 2017 guideline recommendation from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention states that additional prophylactic antibiotics should not be administered after procedures deemed clean or clean-contaminated.

CONCLUSION

The benefits of single-dose preoperative antibiotics and the use of antibiotic-impregnated or antibiotic-coated IPPs are well established. Postoperatively, the available IPP and broader surgical literature does not reflect a benefit from the administration of additional antibiotics and demonstrates higher rates of antibiotic-associated adverse events and the emergence of drug resistance. In average-risk patients undergoing IPP insertion, contemporary data suggest that it is safe for postoperative antibiotics to be withheld. Dropkin BM, Kaufman MR. Antibiotics and Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Insertion: A Literature Review. Sex Med 2021;9:174-180.

Techniques and considerations of prosthetic surgery after phalloplasty in the transgender male

For many transgender males, "lower" or "bottom" surgery (the construction of a phallus and scrotum) is the definitive step in their surgical journey for gender affirmation. The implantation of penile and testicular prostheses is often the final anatomic addition and serves to add both functionality and aesthetics to the reconstruction. However, with markedly distinctive anatomy from cis-gender men, the implantation of prostheses designed for cis-male genitalia poses a significant surgical challenge for the reconstructive urologist. The surgical techniques for these procedures remain in their infancy. Implantation of devices originally engineered for cis-men is an imperfect solution but not insurmountable if approached with ingenuity, patience, and persistence. Urologists and patients undergoing implantation should be aware of the high complication rates associated with these procedures as well as the current uncertainty of long-term outcomes. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the perioperative considerations, adaptive surgical techniques, and unique complications of penile and testicular prosthetic implantation in transgender men.

Efficacy and safety of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS): Results of a large multi-institutional cohort of patients with mid-term follow-up

AIMS

To assess efficacy and safety as well as predictive factors of dry rate and freedom from surgical revision in patients underwent AUS placement. The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is still considered the standard for the treatment of moderate to severe post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence (SUI). However, data reporting efficacy and safety from large series are lacking.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted in 16 centers in Europe and USA. Only primary cases of AUS implantation in non-neurogenic SUI after prostate surgery, with a follow-up of at least 1 year were included. Efficacy data (continence rate, based on pad usage) and safety data (revision rate in case of infection and erosion, as well as atrophy or mechanical failure) were collected. Multivariable analyses were performed in order to investigate possible predictors of the aforementioned outcomes.

RESULTS

Eight hundred ninety-two men had primary AUS implantation. At 32 months mean follow-up overall dry rate and surgical revision were 58% and 30.7%, respectively. Logistic regression analysis showed that patients without previous incontinence surgery had a higher probability to be dry after AUS implantation (OR: 0.51, P = 0.03). Moreover institutional case-load was positively associated with dry rate (OR: 1.18; P = 0.005) and freedom from revision (OR: 1.51; P = 0.00).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that AUS is an effective option for the treatment of SUI after prostate surgery. Moreover previous incontinence surgery and low institutional case-load are negatively associated to efficacy and safety outcomes.