In Vitro Assessment of Antimicrobial Properties of Rifampin-Coated Titan® Coloplast Penile Implants and Comparison with Inhibizone®

Infection rates following urologic prosthetic revision without replacement of any device components compared to partial or complete device exchange: a single-center retrospective cohort study

Urologic implant revision carries a higher infection risk than virgin implantation. Historically, exchanging device components at the time of revision was performed to reduce infection risk. We hypothesize that revision without replacement of any parts of the device may not be associated with increased infection risk. A single-center, retrospective cohort study was performed on patients undergoing urologic implant revision from 2000 to 2021. Revisions involving exchange of any/all device components (+CE) were compared to revisions without exchange of any components (-CE). The primary outcome was infection or erosion within 12 weeks of revision. Infection rates were compared using Fischer exact test. Infection-free survival (IFS) was compared with Kaplan-Meier (KM) log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model. 551 revisions were included, including 497 revisions with CE and 54 without CE. Among those with at least 12 weeks follow-up, no difference was seen in infection rates within 12 weeks of revision [-CE 3/39 (7.7%) vs. +CE 10/383 (2.6%)], p = 0.109). In addition, IFS was comparable between groups (log-rank test p = 0.22, HR for -CE 1.65 (0.65-4.21). Revision surgery for IPP or AUS without CE may not present an elevated risk of infection in the properly selected patient.

Evaluation of Bacteria in a Novel In Vitro Biofilm Model of Penile Prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Delayed infection, thought to be due to gradual biofilm formation, remains a feared complication after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) insertion. Understanding and preventing biofilm formation is necessary to prevent infections.

AIM

To develop an in vitro model and compare growth of biofilm by different bacteria on IPPs and evaluate the anti-infective efficacy of the Coloplast Titan and AMS 700 InhibiZone.

METHODS

Sterile IPPs (Coloplast) were cut into rings and incubated with S. epidermidis, S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, or K. pneumoniae cultures in tryptic soy broth (TSB) (4 hour) to ensure adequate bacteria attachment, and then in only TSB (120 hours) to allow for biofilm formation. Rings were fixed with ethanol and biofilm measured by spectrophotometer (OD570) after crystal violet staining. This methodology was repeated for S. epidermidis and P. aeruginosa with Coloplast rings dipped in 10 ml of a 10 mg/ml Rifampin, 1 mg/ml Gentamicin, and deionized water solution and undipped AMS InhibiZone rings. Crystal violet assay (OD570) was repeated after incubation within bacteria (2 hour), and then only TSB (120 hours).

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome of the study was OD570 readings, indirectly measuring biofilm mass on implant rings.

RESULTS

S. epidermidis, S. aureus, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and K. pneumoniae all formed significant biofilm. P. aeruginosa showed the strongest predilection to grow biofilm on IPPs. P. aeruginosa also formed significant biofilm on antibiotic-treated Coloplast and AMS rings, while S. epidermidis was inhibited. No significant difference was found in biofilm inhibition between the implants.

CLINICAL TRANSLATION

Our findings suggest gram-negative bacteria may form biofilm more proficiently and quickly on IPPs than gram-positive organisms. Commonly used antibiotic treatments on IPPs may be effective against S. epidermidis but not against P. aeruginosa biofilm formation.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

This is the first study comparing biofilm formation by different bacteria organisms on IPPs and the inhibitive ability of Coloplast and AMS implants against biofilm formation. Clinical data on organisms responsible for infected IPPs is needed to determine the clinical relevance of our findings.

CONCLUSION

Our novel in vitro model of biofilm formation of IPPs evaluated the effect of a gentamicin/rifampin antibiotic dip on Coloplast Titan implants and the anti-infective capacity of the minocycline/rifampin precoated AMS 700 InhibiZone against S. epidermidis and P. aeruginosa. P. aeruginosa was able to grow on both antibiotic-treated implants, with no significant difference, and should continue to be a specific target of investigation to reduce delayed post-operative IPP infections. Narasimman M, Ory J, Bartra SS, et al. Evaluation of Bacteria in a Novel In Vitro Biofilm Model of Penile Prosthesis. J Sex Med 2022;19:1024-1031.

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.

Vancomycin Wrap for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery: Molecular Insights

BACKGROUND

The use of the vancomycin wrap to pretreat the hamstring graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has grown in popularity since it was first described in 2012 and has significantly reduced rates of postoperative infection. However, it remains unknown if this antibiotic treatment affects the molecular composition of the graft.

PURPOSE

To establish whether treatment with vancomycin at 5 mg/mL, the most commonly used concentration, alters the molecular function of the hamstring graft in ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Surplus hamstring tendon collected after routine ACLR surgery was used for in vitro cell culture and ex vivo tissue experiments. Vancomycin was used at 5 mg/mL in RPMI or saline diluent to treat cells and tendon tissue, respectively, with diluent control conditions. Cell viability at 30, 60, and 120 minutes was assessed via colorimetric viability assay. Tendon cells treated with control and experimental conditions for 1 hour was evaluated using semiquantitative reverse transcription analysis, immunohistochemistry staining, and protein quantitation via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for changes in apoptotic, matrix, and inflammatory gene and protein expression.

RESULTS

Vancomycin treatment at 5 mg/mL significantly reduced tenocyte viability in vitro after 60 minutes of treatment (P < .05); however, this was not sustained at 120 minutes. Vancomycin-treated tendon tissue showed no significant increase in apoptotic gene expression, or apoptotic protein levels in tissue or supernatant, ex vivo. Vancomycin was associated with a reduction in inflammatory proteins from treated tendon supernatants (IL-6; P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Vancomycin did not significantly alter the molecular structure of the hamstring graft. Reductions in matrix protein and inflammatory cytokine release point to a potential beneficial effect of vancomycin in generating a homeostatic environment.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Vancomycin ACL wrap does not alter the molecular structure of the ACL hamstring graft and may improve graft integrity.

Penile prosthesis and complications: Results from 577 implants

OBJECTIVE

Penile Prosthetic Surgery is already well characterized but the problems connected with possible complications still need to be evaluated and discussed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Authors revaluated their experience in Penile Prosthetic Surgery involving 577 patients (18 - 86 years, mean age 51.3 years) operated by the same surgeon since 1984. We implanted 199 silicone-semi-rigid (Small Carrion, Implantal, Eurogest, Subrini, SSDA GS), 200 malleable (Jonas, Omniphase, Duraphase, AMS600, MentorColoplast Genesis, Vedise) and 178 inflatable (Mentor: Mark II, Alpha I, Titan OTR; AMS: mono-component Hydroflex, Dynaflex; bi-component Ambicor; multicomponent: 700 Ultrex, 700 CX, 700 LGX) prostheses. Operative, postoperative, infectious and malfunctioning complications have been recorded. A total of 156 patients drop out at follow-up and we may not exclude possible late complications treated at different hospitals.

RESULTS

The recorded complications and the therapeutic modalities utilized to treat them are examined. Operative complications were recorded in 2 malleable prostheses (MPP) and in one inflatable prosthesis (IPP). Postoperative complications have been recorded in three cases of MPP (1.5%) and in 9 IPP (5.0%) and were strictly connected to general medical co-morbidities as diabetes mellitus (DM), coronary artery dysfunction (CAD), and Peyronie's disease (PD). In three cases of IPP implantation, hematomas were related to the blunt surgical maneuvers utilized to insert the reservoir or the scrotal pumps. Infectious complications were mostly observed in patients with DM: 4 patients with MPP (1.0%) and 15 patients with IPP (8.4%). Malfunction rate of the prostheses in our series was really disappointing considering that 13/17 cases (77%) of mono-component IPP broke while in patients with multicomponent IPP the percentage of malfunction has been of 13/161 (8%) and malfunction was observed in only one case of MPP. We were forced to explant the prostheses in 2 patients with MPP (0.5%) and 40 with IPP (22%). However, after excluding 17 mono-component IPPs, the percentage of explants of multicomponent IPP (23 patients, 4.2%) is in line with other significative experiences.

CONCLUSION

The number of complications of PPS are similar to those reported by well qualified urological institutions. In our experience a scrupulous antibiotic therapeutic schedule, avoiding direct contact between the prostheses and the patient's skin, reduced time of surgery with surgeon's experience positively influenced the results.In a limited number of patients medical treatment or minimal surgical acts allowed to solve the complications preserving the prostheses and avoiding the prosthetic explant.

The Effect of Bupivacaine on the Efficacy of Antibiotic Coating on Penile Implants in Preventing Infection

Background

In an effort to reduce dependence on opioids following inflatable penile prosthesis placement, intra-operative soaking of the implant in Bupivacaine (BUP) has been proposed as part of a multimodal approach to pain control. However, no study has shown if the addition of BUP affects the antimicrobial properties of InhibiZone on AMS700 (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) and/or of antibiotic soaked Titan Coloplast (Coloplast Corporation, Minneapolis, MN).

Aim

To determine if BUP alters the zone of inhibition (ZOI) against Staphylococcus epidermidis (S epidermidis) and Escherichia coli (E coli), common gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial causes of infection, respectively, created by InhibiZone coated AMS and/or by antibiotic-soaked Coloplast implant.

Methods

S epidermidis and E coli were spread on agar plates. After a 30-minute incubation, four AMS with InhibiZone strips treated with sterile saline or BUP (1.25 mg/mL) were placed on a plate. 4 Coloplast strips were dipped in varying routinely used concentrations of Rifampin (0–10 mg/mL) plus Gentamicin (0–1 mg/mL; rifampin and gentamicin (R+G)) solution with or without BUP. The ZOI for AMS with InhibiZone and Coloplast dipped in antibiotic solution was measured using ImageJ software. Normalized ZOI was calculated as (ZOI area/plate area) × 100. Unpaired t-test compared the mean ± SD ZOI between BUP and no BUP groups (n = 4/group).

Outcomes

The primary outcome of the study was the ZOI against E coli and S epidermidis at 24 and 48 hours.

Results

Growth of both S epidermidis and E coli at 24 and 48 hours of incubation was inhibited in both implants and the addition of BUP did not alter the ZOI. Coloplast strips dipped in R+G produced a ZOI in a dose-dependent manner. Interestingly, the ZOI against S epidermidis compared to that of E coli was much wider for both implants.

Clinical Implications

This suggests that the use of BUP does not affect the protective effects of antibiotic dips and can potentially be used during penile prosthesis surgery pending clinical trials.

Strengths and Limitations

This is the first study to evaluate the effect of BUP on anti-bacterial dips. As with all in vitro analysis, further research must be done to see if these findings hold true in the clinical setting.

Conclusions

The addition of BUP does not impede the in vitro antibacterial activity of InhibiZone-coated AMS or R+G-soaked Coloplast. Whether these in vitro findings translate to surgical outcomes needs to be evaluated in future preclinical trials.

Lokeshwar SD, Horodyski L, Lahorewala SS, et al. The Effect of Bupivacaine on the Efficacy of Antibiotic Coating on Penile Implants in Preventing Infection. J Sex Med 2019;7:337−344.

Vancomycin-soaked wrapping of harvested hamstring tendons during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A review of the 'vancomycin wrap'

The practice of 'vancomycin wrapping' of harvested hamstring autografts during Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR) surgery has gathered recent interest. This practice involves the wrapping of harvested grafts in a vancomycin-soaked swab during the preparatory phase. Different techniques are observed, and a small number of studies have shown that pre-soaking hamstring ACLR grafts in this manner dramatically reduces the post-surgical infection rate compared with standard intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis alone. However, the literature surrounding this practice is surprisingly limited and thus the basis and rationale of the 'vancomycin wrap' has established itself largely without question. The exact popularity of this practice is difficult to establish but there has been increasing disclosure of its efficacy in reducing post-operative infection in ACLR since 2012. We provide a synopsis of the current literature surrounding vancomycin and its use in 'wraps' in ACLR to help apprise the surgeon of the nature of infection in ACLR, the rationale for vancomycin, whilst considering evidence to support alternatives and discussing potential ramifications for future practice.

A Surgeon's Guide to the Various Antibiotic Dips Available During Penile Prosthesis Implantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is a treatment for erectile dysfunction. IPPs have undergone improvements; however, post-surgical infections still occur. Furthermore, the type of pathogens infecting the implants has changed recently from Gram-positive to Gram-negative bacteria and fungi due to advances in antibiotic dips targeting the skin flora. To protect against infection, the AMS 700 is pre-coated with InhibiZone (mixture of Rifampin/Minocycline) and the Coloplast Titan, with several antibiotic dip options of differing efficacies. This review discusses strategies to decrease the infection rates in implant surgery, focusing on antibiotic dips.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current research endorses the use of rifampin/gentamicin as the most studied combination; however, some studies have utilized different dips for additional coverage including the InhibiZone on the AMS 700. With the increasing prevalence of diabetes and Gram-negative organisms, there is a need to develop strategies for increased coverage against infections. Controlled studies with different antibiotic combinations are needed to identify the ideal cocktail to decrease infection.

Minimising the risk of device infection in penile prosthetic surgery: a UK perspective

We have reviewed articles published on penile prosthetic infection in Medline and EMBASE databases from 2000 to 2012 with the intention of signposting ‘best evidence’ for the UK prosthetic implanter. Using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence (LE), no paper exceeded an LE of 2b and the majority were LE 4 (case series) and LE 5 (expert opinion). This is not surprising from a UK perspective since HES data for 2009 to 2010 reported 263 penile prosthetic surgeries performed in 35 hospitals, with only five hospitals performing 15 or more. Our literature review suggests that the use of antibiotic-coated IPPs and measures aimed at reducing inoculating bacteria into the surgical wound with alcohol skin preparation, a no-touch technique and peri-operative antibiotic use are most important in minimising the risk of device infection. The use of post-operative antibiotics is contentious (LE 5). It remains unproven whether diabetics have a higher rate of prosthetic infection compared to nondiabetics. In cases of re-implantation for mechanical failure, it remains debatable whether a washout technique should be used and indeed uncertainty remains regarding the pathological role of biofilm in the causation of device infection in this scenario. A washout technique during salvage penile prosthetic surgery for device infection is advocated. Further research on biofilm may offer the best chance of reducing the incidence of device infections overall.

Penile prosthesis surgery in the management of erectile dysfunction

Introduction

We reviewed retrospectively the use of penile prostheses, including the indications and complications of penile prosthesis surgery.

Methods

We identified publications and the reported advances in penile prosthesis surgery between 1987 and 2012 in Pub-Med, and published information from American Medical Systems, Inc. (Minnetonka, MN, USA) and Coloplast Corporation (Humlebaek, Denmark), using the keywords ‘penile prosthesis’, ‘erectile dysfunction’, ‘mechanical reliability’, ‘complications’ and ‘infection’.

Results

We describe the novel indications for the use of penile prostheses, the significant advances in implant designs with improved mechanical reliability, the changing landscape of device infection, and the current management of complications. Sixty-eight publications with a grade A, B and C level of evidence are cited.

Conclusion

The clinical indications to implant a penile prosthesis have expanded beyond organic erectile dysfunction. With the many different devices currently available, the choice of which device to implant can be tailored based on an individual’s unique medical conditions, manual dexterity and expectations, and surgeon preference. There must be a conscious effort to prevent device infection, in the light of the development of increasingly virulent organisms. Penile prosthesis surgery is an integral part of the treatment of erectile dysfunction when non-surgical options fail or are contraindicated.

Inflatable penile prosthesis and salvage protocol for mechanical failure: is it really necessary?

INTRODUCTION

Penile prosthesis patients with mechanical failure who wish continued treatment require device removal and replacement. Infection rates as high as 18% have been reported for procedures involving replacement of malfunctioning penile prosthesis compared with 2% for primary implantation.

AIM

The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of patients who have had a penile prosthesis replacement for mechanical failure to determine if those who had a mini-salvage washout procedure had better outcomes than those who did not.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients undergoing inflatable penile prosthesis replacement for mechanical failure from 1997 to 2010. Demographics, past medical history, reason for device failure, type of device, time from original implantation to failure, operative details, culture results, and follow-up data were analyzed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Infection rates for penile implant revisions with and without mini-salvage washout.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients underwent a mini-salvage procedure for mechanical failure and 87 patients underwent standard sterile replacement. There were no infections in the mini-salvage group and two (2.3%) in the standard sterile group (P=1.00). In patients with culture data available, two patients in each group had coagulase negative staphylococcus on culture, but none of these patients developed an infection. One patient who developed an infection had an intraoperative culture, which revealed no growth. The other patient with an infection did not undergo intraoperative culture testing. Operating room (OR) time was longer with the mini-salvage procedure (156 ± 36 minutes vs. 131 ± 31 minutes, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Performing a mini-salvage procedure for patients undergoing penile prosthesis replacement for mechanical failure adds to operative time but did not significantly change the infection rate and may not be indicated. Furthermore, intraoperative culture results were not predictive of postoperative infection.

Long-term revision rate due to infection in hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prostheses: 11-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Penile implant surgery continues to be an important option for men with erectile dysfunction. Advancements in technology of implants have contributed to improved survival from mechanical breakdown. Prosthesis infection remains a serious adverse event. For the last 8 years, the Titan implant (Coloplast Corporation, Minneapolis, MN, USA) has been available with an infection-retardant polyvinylpyrrolidone coating.

AIM

To compare the infection rates between coated three-piece inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) with the previous non-coated model.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Infection-related revisions reported in the physician-generated, manufacturer-tabulated patient information forms (PIFs).

METHODS

PIFs reported into the voluntary, post-market registry of Coloplast Corporation from July 14, 2000 to September 30, 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Infection-related revisions entered into the product evaluation database for coated and non-coated IPPs were compared. Data were analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared test.

RESULTS

The database included 36,391 PIFs related to primary IPP implantation. At 11 years of follow-up, 4.6% (7,031) of non-coated IPPs were removed or replaced due to infections, whereas 1.4% (29,360) of hydrophilic-coated implants reported replacements due to device infections. The hydrophilic coating of the IPP components makes the device slippery and prevents bacterial attachment. The hydrophilic coating allows rapid absorption of antibiotics in an aqueous solution and allows these water-soluble antibiotics to elute off the device into the implant spaces. Unfortunately, information pertaining to what agents were used in the studies patients was not tabulated. The rate of revision due to device infection was reduced 69.56% in patients with hydrophilic-coated IPPs (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the longest post-marketing registry report related to IPP infections. At 8 years of follow-up, the hydrophilic-coated IPPs demonstrated a significant reduction in revision rates due to infection when compared with the 11-year follow-up of non-coated implants. Since there was no information or uniformity of antibiotics used in the soaking solution, it is uncertain which antibiotic selection provided the best results. In vitro testing against known infectious agents may further benefit IPP patients by reducing the prosthesis infection rate.

Coated implants and "no touch" surgical technique decreases risk of infection in inflatable penile prosthesis implantation to 0.46%

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether a "no touch" enhancement to the surgical technique of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPPs) implantaion will further decrease infection rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single surgeon performed 2347 IPPs between January 2002 and June 2011. Patients receiving each manufacturer's implants were stratified for age and diabetes. Since 2003, infection retardant-coated IPPs were implanted through the standardized penoscrotal approach. Since 2006, the "no touch" enhancement was added to the surgical procedure. Infection rates in the noncoated IPP, coated IPP with standard technique, and coated IPP implanted with "no touch" enhancement were calculated and subjected to statistical analysis. The two company's implants were scrutinized for their individual infection rates in each group.

RESULTS

Patients in all the groups were similar for age and diabetes. 132 noncoated implants had an infection rate of 5.3%. In the years 2003-2005, 704 coated devices had a statistically significant improvement in incidence of infection to 2%. In the years 2006-2010, the "no touch" technique enhanced the standard surgical procedure in 1511 patients. Only 7 infections were seen yielding an infection incidence of 0.46%. There was no difference in the two manufacturer's infection rates. Differentiation between virgin and revision operation displayed no bias in the infection rate.

CONCLUSION

Infection-retardant coatings lower the risk of infection from 5.3% to 2%. The "no touch" enhancement to the surgical procedure further decreases the rate of infection to 0.46%. Neither manufacturer showed statistical superiority in survival from revision for infection.

Anti-infection dip suggestions for the Coloplast Titan Inflatable Penile Prosthesis in the era of the infection retardant coated implant

INTRODUCTION

Infection is the worst complication seen with inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). Both the American Medical Systems (AMS) and Coloplast IPP have infection retardant coatings. AMS is coated at the factory with rifampicin and minocycline (InhibiZone). The Coloplast IPP has a hydrophilic coating covalently bonded to its components that will absorb any aqueous solution before implantation and provides increased surface lubricity to decrease bacterial adherence.

AIM

We tested several antibiotic dips comparing zones of inhibition (ZOI) against five commonly infecting bacteria with coated Coloplast implants. Results were compared with those ZOI created with strips of an AMS IPP precoated with InhibiZone.

METHODS

  Pieces of sterile Coloplast Titan IPP were dipped in (i) trimethoprim/polymixin B ophthalmic solution; (ii) trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole infusion solution; (iii) bacitracin; (iv) rifampicin/minocycline; and (v) rifampin/trimehtoprim/sulfamethoxazole. ZOI for the Titan strips and for AMS InhibiZone coated strips were tested against Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus lugdunensis, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas, and Enterococcus.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

ZOIs of the Coloplast Titan for each of the medicated solutions were compared with ZOI created by undipped strips of a sterile InhibiZone coated IPP placed on plates of the identical bacteria.

RESULTS

All dips except bacitracin showed ZOI≥InhibiZone (P≥0.005) for most organisms. Because of broad-spectrum effectiveness, ease of handling, and cost, infusion vial of trimehtoprim/sulfamethoxazole seemed optimal at this time. If trimehtoprim/sulfamethoxazole is unavailable; the ZOI with Polytrim ophthalmic solution zones were almost as good.

CONCLUSIONS

The Coloplast strips when dipped in several solutions showed equal or significantly larger ZOI against commonly infecting organisms than the InhibiZone coated strips. At the present time using off the shelf trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole infusion solution seems optimum. The flexibility of choosing the drug eluting from the Coloplast device seems promising in the changing bacterial environment.

Contemporary revision penile prosthesis surgery is not associated with a high risk of implant colonization or infection: a single-surgeon series

INTRODUCTION

Revision penile prosthesis surgery has traditionally been associated with a greater risk of postoperative infection than primary implant placement. This has been attributed to the high prevalence of asymptomatic bacteria found surrounding the implant at the time of revision surgery.

AIM

To validate whether contemporary revision surgery remains associated with a high risk of asymptomatic colonization and postoperative infection.

METHODS

A comprehensive, prospective database consisting of consecutive patients undergoing primary and revision penile prosthesis surgery at our center was analyzed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The infection risk in primary and revision implant surgery was compared. The prevalence of asymptomatic implant colonization during revision surgery, and whether this was associated with clinical infection was evaluated. The spectrum of bacterial species causing infection in this contemporary single-surgeon series was described.

RESULTS

One hundred seventeen primary and 72 revision implant recipients were studied. Infection developed in four (3.4%) patients undergoing primary implants, two (4.3%) patients undergoing removal and replacement for mechanical malfunction, and three (12%) patients undergoing rerouting for extrusion (P = 0.26). Intraoperative cultures were positive in 5 (9.8%) of 51 revision patients, none of whom developed infections. Organisms causing infection included Staphylococcus aureus and Enterobacter aerogenes. Unexpectedly, an adjuvant, alcohol-based skin prep in our last 83 patients reduced the infection risk to 1.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, the infection risk associated with revision of malfunctioning devices was no greater than primary implant placement. Rerouting was associated with a higher infection risk, likely due to technical factors, and not implant colonization. Less than 10% of our revision implants were colonized, and this had no bearing on the development of a postoperative infection. S. epidermidis was not the most common organism implicated in device infections. Finally, our experience with an adjuvant, alcohol-based skin prep warrants further randomized prospective evaluation.

Antibiotic patterns with inflatable penile prosthesis insertion

INTRODUCTION

A clear set of guidelines has not been defined in the use of antibiotics in penile prosthesis implantation. Aim.  We surveyed urologists throughout the United States to determine current practice patterns regarding antibiotic use in primary and revision penile prosthesis surgery.

METHODS

Fifty-two Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMS) member urologist and 164 non-SMS member urologist responses were obtained.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The survey contained 10 questions regarding antibiotic selection for primary and revision inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation.

RESULTS

One hundred percent of responders in both groups utilize intraoperative antibiotics, most commonly vancomycin and gentamicin in both groups. Of SMS members, 94% prescribed postoperative home oral antibiotics in contrast to 88% of non-SMS members (P = 0.3). Among SMS members, the most common antibiotic prescribed postoperatively was levofloxacin 500 mg daily while among non-SMS members, the most common antibiotic postoperatively was cephalexin 500 mg 2-4 times daily. Of SMS members, antibiotic irrigation intraoperatively occurred with 100% and with 92% of non-SMS members (P = 0.04). Thirty-seven percent SMS physicians and 15% non-SMS physicians made modifications of intraoperative and postoperative antibiotics for high-risk patients (P = 0.001). In the circumstance of revision of a clinically noninfected IPP, 23% SMS and 16% non-SMS member physicians utilized additional antibiotics/treatment (P = 0.3). Sixteen of those surveyed admitted that they had been approached by their institution about their antibiotic use and asked to change. In the past 5 years, 29% surveyed have changed their practice patterns in antibiotic use.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant difference between practice patterns of SMS and non-SMS urologists in terms of antibiotic irrigation usage, modifications for high-risk patients, and consensus about the importance of antibiotic use with Coloplast Titan implant (Coloplast, Minneapolis, MN, USA). A significant lack of uniformity exists among urologists performing prosthetic surgery with regard to antibiotic protocols. A standard set of guidelines may prove useful to implanters.

Infection rates of rifampin/gentamicin-coated Titan Coloplast penile implants. Comparison with Inhibizone-impregnated AMS penile implants

INTRODUCTION

It is a common practice to soak Titan(®) Coloplast penile implants in antibiotic solution prior to implantation. Experience with Inhibizone impregnation suggests that rifampin coating significantly reduces infection rates of penile implant surgery. In this article we describe the results of coating Titan Coloplast penile implants with rifampin/gentamicin solution.

AIM

To compare infection rates of Titan(®) Coloplast penile implants coated with vancomycin/gentamycin, rifampin/gentamicin, and Inhibizone-impregnated American Medical Systems (AMS) penile implants.

METHODS

Chart review was done for all Mentor/Coloplast and AMS implant surgeries performed at our center between the dates January 1, 2002 and February 8, 2010. Infection rates for Titan(®) Coloplast penile implants coated with vancomycin/gentamycin, rifampin/gentamicin, and Inhibizone-impregnated (AMS) penile implants were compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Infection rates for penile implants coated with different antibiotics.

RESULTS

Infection rates for Titan(®) Coloplast penile implants coated with vancomycin/gentamycin and Inhibizone-impregnated (AMS) penile implants was 4.4% and 1.3%, respectively (P = 0.05). None of the rifampin/gentamicin-coated Titan(®) Coloplast penile implants have developed infection. Rifampin is the common antibiotic both in rifampin/gentamicin-coated Coloplast implants and Inhibizone(®) . The infection rate in this combined rifampin/gentamicin-coated Titan Coloplast implants and Inhibizone-coated AMS implants group was 0.63% (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Both rifampin/gentamicin-coated Titan(®) Coloplast penile implants and Inhibizone-impregnated (AMS) penile implants appear to have lower infection rates compared with vancomycin/gentamycin-coated Titan(®) Coloplast penile implants The present study does not suggest superiority of rifampin/gentamicin-coated Titan(®) Coloplast penile implants or Inhibizone-impregnated (AMS) penile implants but we strongly suggest that all Titan(®) Coloplast penile implants should be coated with rifampin/gentamicin solution.