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

A propensity score-matched analysis of intra- and postoperative penile prosthetic complications in the solid organ transplant population

INTRODUCTION

Solid organ transplant (SOT) has an anticipated higher risk of penile prosthesis (PP) complications related to immunosuppression and surgical approach post-SOT. It is still not determined if PP surgery in the SOT population incurs these same higher risks.

OBJECTIVES

To observe differences in intra- and postoperative PP complications between SOT and non-SOT cases from the TriNetX US Collaborative Network, a large real-world database of deidentified patient data from 56 health care organizations within the United States.

METHODS

We used the TriNetX database to perform a propensity score-matched cohort study comparing 10-year outcomes between patients with and without a SOT (kidney, heart, lung, liver, pancreas, and intestine) who underwent a PP procedure. Cohorts were matched on age, race/ethnicity, history of pelvic and abdominal surgery, overweight and obesity status, type 2 diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, substance use disorders, socioeconomic difficulties, anticoagulant/antiplatelet medications, and spinal cord injury. Outcomes included intra- and perioperative complications as well as prosthetic complications (mechanical malfunction, fibrosis, displacement, hemorrhage, pain, stenosis, removal with or without replacement, and complex [all postoperative complications]).

RESULTS

There were 233 patients in each group after matching (SOT and non-SOT). The mean ± SD age at the prosthesis procedure was 59.7 ± 9.89 years, and 44% of patients were White (P > .05). There was no significant difference for incidence of intra- and perioperative complications (2.62% vs 2.19%, P = .76). The SOT group did not have a higher 10-year incidence of complex complications (30.58% vs 27.51%, P = .11) or mechanical malfunction (10.35% vs 11.62%, P = .25) when compared with the non-SOT group. No difference was found for other prosthetic-related complications (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

In our analysis, patients with a SOT were not more likely to experience long-term complications related to PP. Surgeons performing PP surgery in the SOT population may consider this procedure a potentially safe and viable option for restoring erectile function.

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.

Microbe-metabolite interaction networks, antibiotic resistance, and in vitro reconstitution of the penile prosthesis biofilm support a paradigm shift from infection to colonization

To understand differences between asymptomatic colonized and infected states of indwelling medical devices, we sought to determine penile prosthesis biofilm composition, microbe-metabolite interaction networks, and association with clinical factors. Patients scheduled for penile prosthesis removal/revision were included. Samples from swabbed devices and controls underwent next-generation sequencing, metabolomics, and culture-based assessments. Biofilm formation from device isolates was reconstituted in a continuous-flow stir tank bioreactor. 93% of 27 analyzed devices harbored demonstrable biofilm. Seven genera including Faecalibaculum and Jeotgalicoccus were more abundant in infected than uninfected device biofilms (p < 0.001). Smokers and those with diabetes mellitus or cardiac disease had lower total normalized microbial counts than those without the conditions (p < 0.001). We identified microbe-metabolite interaction networks enriched in devices explanted for infection and pain. Biofilm formation was recapitulated on medical device materials including silicone, PTFE, polyurethane, and titanium in vitro to facilitate further mechanistic studies. Nearly all penile prosthesis devices harbor biofilms. Staphylococcus and Escherichia, the most common causative organisms of prosthesis infection, had similar abundance irrespective of infection status. A series of other uncommon genera and metabolites were differentially abundant, suggesting a complex microbe-metabolite pattern-rather than a single organism-is responsible for the transition from asymptomatic to infected or painful states.

Rigicon disposable Furlow insertion tool has the potential to decrease infection rates after inflatable penile prosthesis implantation

Furlow insertion tool is frequently used during the insertion of the inflatable penile prosthesis cylinders inside the corporal bodies. Although these devices are completely disassembled and separately sterilized after each operation, the residual blood clots and tissues after inadequate cleaning may become the primary sources of penile prosthesis infection. In order to minimize the risk of infection, Rigicon, Inc. (NY, USA) has developed the first disposable Furlow insertion tool. Head-to-head comparison studies with conventional and disposable Furlow insertion tools are necessary to confirm if there is a significant difference in post-implant infection rates.

Timing and causative organisms associated with modern inflatable penile prosthesis infection: an institutional retrospective

BACKGROUND

The advent of antibiotic-coated devices has reduced the rate of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infections; however, this may have altered microbial profiles when infections do occur.

AIM

To describe the timing and causative organisms behind infection of infection retardant-coated IPPs in the context of our institution's perioperative antimicrobial protocols.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing IPP placement at our institution from January 2014 to January 2022. In all patients, perioperative antibiotic administration was congruent with American Urological Association guidelines. Boston Scientific devices are impregnated with InhibiZone (rifampin and minocycline), and all Coloplast devices were soaked in rifampin and gentamicin. Intraoperative irrigation was performed with betadine 5% irrigation prior to November 2016 and with vancomycin-gentamicin solution afterward. Cases involving prosthesis infection were identified, and variables were extracted from the medical record. Descriptive and comparative statistics were tabulated to identify clinical characteristics, including patient comorbidities, prophylaxis regimen, symptom onset, and intraoperative culture result. We previously reported an increased infection risk with Betadine irrigation and stratified results accordingly.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was time to infectious symptoms, while the secondary outcome was description of device cultures at the time of explantation.

RESULTS

A total of 1071 patients underwent IPP placement over 8 years with an overall infection rate of 2.6% (28/1071). After discontinuation of Betadine, the overall infection rate was significantly lower at 0.9% (8/919) with a relative risk of 16.9 with Betadine (P < .0001). Primary procedures represented 46.4% (13/28). Of 28 patients with infection, only 1 had no identified risk factors; the remainder included Betadine at 71% (20/28), revision/salvage procedure at 53.6% (15/28), and diabetes at 50% (14/28). Median time to symptoms was 36 days (IQR, 26-52); almost 30% of patients had systemic symptoms. Organisms with high virulence, or ability to cause disease, were found in 90.5% (19/21) of positive cultures.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Our study revealed a median time to symptoms of just over 1 month. Risk factors for infection were Betadine 5% irrigation, diabetes, and revision/salvage cases. Over 90% causative organisms were virulent, demonstrating a microbial profile trend since antibiotic coating development.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

The large prospectively maintained database is a strength along with the ability to follow specific changes in perioperative protocols. The retrospective nature of the study is a limitation as well as the low infection rate, which limits certain subanalyses from being performed.

CONCLUSION

IPP infections present in a delayed manner despite the rising virulence of infecting organisms. These findings highlight areas for improvement in perioperative protocols in the contemporary prosthetics era.

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 prosthesis salvage: a historical look at the Mulcahy technique and a review of the latest literature

Historically, management of inflatable penile prosthesis infection was explantation of the device with delayed reimplantation at a later date. In 1991, this paradigm was challenged when early attempts at washout and immediate salvage proved successful. The clinical experiences and data generated over the past 30 years have allowed implanters to refine their salvage procedures to improve patient outcomes. In this article, we review the original Mulcahy technique for salvage and discuss updates to this protocol based on recent data.

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.

Narrative review of penile prosthetic implant technology and surgical results, including transgender patients

Over the past 40 years, the technological and surgical advancements in penile prostheses have led to increased patient satisfaction rates and decreased complication and infection rates. In cis males with erectile dysfunction (ED), these technological improvements tremendously improve quality of life. In female to male transgender patients, prostheses provide the ability to engage in penetrative intercourse and to urinate standing. This review evaluates technological and surgical advancements in penile prosthetics in the context of documented patient satisfaction and complication rates from prosthesis surgeries. Retrospective studies of penile implant usage in female to male gender-affirming surgeries report that infection and complication rates are higher than those seen in cis males. There are newer prostheses developed specifically for female to male reassignment surgeries, but outcome data is limited. Continued research and development are needed to develop more efficacious penile implantation options for gender affirmation surgery.

Do Antifungals and Local Anesthetic Affect the Efficacy of Antibiotic Dipping Solution?

BACKGROUND

The rates of infection after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) range from 1% to 3%; however, with changes in antibiotic practice intraoperatively and the incorporation of local anesthetic dips, it is unclear whether this incidence of infection is affected.

AIM

To evaluate whether the utilization of local anesthetic dips and antifungal solutions affect the efficacy of previously established dips across multiple species and strains.

METHODS

Strains of four different species of bacteria and one fungus were prepared in a standardized confluency. A standardized, and sterile protocol was used to punch out 6mm circular discs from the reservoir of a Coloplast Titan device. The discs were submerged in a standardized concentration of antimicrobials (combinations of Bactrim, Rifampin + Gentamicin, Vancomycin, Zosyn, and Amphotericin B) and plated. The zone of inhibition (ZOI) was measured at 24, 48, and 72 hours. Five repetitions of each organism was performed (>1700 discs), and the mean ZOI was calculated. Saline and DMSO were used as control on each plate.

OUTCOMES

Main outcome was the ZOI identified with each antibiotic solution, and the secondary outcome was the efficacy of the antibiotic over the course of 72 hours.

RESULTS

Difference in antibiotic efficacy was seen when each bacterial species was evaluated separately, with rifampin and gentamicin having less efficacy towards all organisms other than S. epidermidis. When looking specifically at the Candida species, amphotericin B was significantly better than other antibiotic solutions. In regards to efficacy of antibiotics over 72 hours, all treatment groups showed a decrease in ZOI over time. However, treatment groups that included rifampin demonstrated the ability to inhibit S. aureus and S. epidermidis over the 72-hour period.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

To improve clinical practice and alleviate concerns that incorporation of local anesthetic and antifungals may decrease the efficacy of antibiotic solutions.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

A major strength of the study is that it is the most robust and scientifically sound study performed on this topic with approximately 1700 repetitions. It is also the first study of its kind to include a wide spectrum of bacterial and fungal strains and antibiotic solutions along with temporal data on drug elution over a 72-hour period. A limitation of the study is the in vitro model, and this needs to be validated in a clinical setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Dipping prosthetics in antifungal and local anesthetic does not decrease the efficacy of the antimicrobials. The drug elution capabilities of the hydrophilic coating lasts primarily for 24-48hours. Mishra K, Bukavina L, Long L, et al. Do Antifungals and Local Anesthetic Affect the Efficacy of Antibiotic Dipping Solution?. J Sex Med 2021;18:966-973.

Biofilm and penile prosthesis infections in the era of coated implants: 2021 update

William Costerton, the pioneer of bacterial biofilm research and Wilson published a review of this subject in 2012. Recent events and false claims have prompted an update for urologists regarding the science of penile implant biofilm. The recent biofilm literature has been investigated and new conclusions regarding penile implant biofilm physiology are clarified in this review. The timeline of biofilm formation is as follows. The wound is contaminated upon incision, and the inoculum of bacteria ceases with incision closure. Almost immediately planktonic bacteria attach to the implant and secrete biofilm which alters the host's ability to eradicate the bacteria. Infection retardant coatings impair clinical infection by common skin organisms including coagulase negative staphylococci, the most frequent offenders. In the modern era of availability of infection retardant coated implants, the increasingly rare penile implant infections are now usually caused by more virulent bugs. Antibiotic elution from the surface of the implant is a tiny dose and only truly helpful in the first 24 h. AMS and Coloplast infection retardant coatings reduce infection equally and contemporary primary implant infections are far lower in experienced implant surgeons' practices.

Prevalence of post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and a review of the recommended therapeutic modalities

Radical prostatectomy (RP) represents one of the most commonly used first-line treatment modalities in men with localized prostate cancer. One of the most feared post-surgical complications is erectile dysfunction (ED), usually caused by direct damage to the cavernous nerves or due to neuropraxia. Penile rehabilitation is an emerging concept that was proposed to stimulate and accelerate recovery of erectile function after RP. The goal is to improve blood flow to the penis, increasing cavernous oxygenation and avoiding fibrosis. The most common used modalities include oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5-I), vacuum erection devices (VEDs), intracorporeal injection (ICI) therapy, medicated urethral system for erections (MUSE), and a combination of these treatments. For those patients with severe ED, ED refractory to medical therapy and/or seeking long term reliable results, the penile prosthesis implant remains an excellent alternative. We conducted a broad review of post-prostatectomy ED prevalence with different techniques and the success rates of the different therapeutic approaches.

Outcomes of inflatable penile prosthesis insertion using a neotunica allograft in neophalluses of patients on the bladder exstrophy-epispadias complex spectrum

BACKGROUND

Men born on the bladder exstrophy-epispadias complex (BEEC) spectrum may undergo neophallus reconstruction with a variety of free flaps, most commonly radial forearm. In order to achieve erectile function, a penile prosthesis may be inserted following neophallus construction.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we sought to describe the perioperative and clinical outcomes of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) insertion into neophalluses of patients along the BEEC spectrum.

STUDY DESIGN

Using a prospectively maintained institutional BEEC database, patients who had undergone both neophallus creation and IPP placement were identified for this study. Surgery was performed by two surgeons with expertise in IPP implantation. Operative details and postoperative outcomes and complications were collected with review of the medical record.

RESULTS

Overall, there were a total of 13 men who underwent neophallus reconstruction with subsequent IPP placement. Of these men, 76.9% (10/13) had experienced successful primary closure in childhood. One patient had corporal loss secondary to complete primary repair of exstrophy (CPRE) following a failed primary attempt. The average age at IPP placement was 23.2 years (SD ± 5.06). Mean OR time (n = 11) was 244.8 min (SD ± 46.2). 76.9% (10/13) of the cases used AlloDerm™ as a neotunica albuginea for support of the IPP. Three patients (23.1%) experienced complications all of which required revision surgery. Two of these complications were erosions in patients for whom AlloDerm™ was not used in the initial IPP placement.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that IPP placement in neophalluses of males on the BEEC spectrum have low perioperative and postoperative morbidity with successful outcomes. While the rate of complications is notably higher in this group compared to the native penis IPP literature, the use of AlloDerm™ or other allograft materials may help to narrow this gap.

CONCLUSIONS

IPP placement in neophalluses of men on the BEEC spectrum is successful in the majority of cases. Complications may be reduced with the use of AlloDerm™ in initial placement.

Sustained Glycemic Control Observed in Diabetic Men Who Improve Hemoglobin A1c Values to Allow for Elective Penile Prosthesis Placement

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesize that men with diabetes mellitus whose inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation is delayed for unacceptably high hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) will have durable improvements in their glycemic control after achieving acceptable HbA1c levels for surgery.

METHODS

Per institutional protocol, an A1c <9% must be documented prior to IPP placement. After IRB approval, a single surgeon IPP database was retrospectively queried for data specific to diabetes mellitus management. Men without HbA1c values at ≥1-year follow-up were excluded. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed to assess associations with sustained HbA1c control.

RESULTS

From January 2011 to March 2019, 138 diabetics undergoing IPP were identified. Thirty-seven were excluding for insufficient follow-up. Nineteen of the 101 analyzed men (18.8%) were delayed a median 4 months (range 2-17) for elevated HbA1c values (median 10.1, range 9.1-12.3). Following improvements, median preoperative HbA1c remained higher (8.2% vs 7.0%) in delayed men (P < .001). Among delayed recipients, 11 (58%) improved without medication changes while insulin was newly initiated (5) or dosage was increased (5) in 42%. At 32 months follow-up, a HbA1c <9% was similarly maintained in delayed and nondelayed men (74% vs 87%, P = .17). Delayed men more commonly required insulin therapy at follow-up (89.5% vs 54.9%, P = .008), but had a similar median change in BMI (+0.1 vs +0.1, P = .65). Device infection occurred in 1 nondelayed patient (0.7%).

CONCLUSION

Men who improve HbA1c for IPP surgery are likely to demonstrate persistent improvement. IPP implantation appears to be safe in diabetic men with HbA1c <9%.

Intraoperative Use of Betadine Irrigation is Associated With a 9-Fold Increased Likelihood of Penile Prosthesis Infection: Results From a Retrospective Case-Control Study

Introduction

Infection remains a persistent complication of penile prosthesis (PP) surgery. Despite popularity of Mulcahy’s PP washout protocol, Betadine has known tissue toxicity.

Aim

We evaluated PP infection rate based on the type of intraoperative irrigation used, ½ strength Betadine vs vancomycin/gentamicin.

Methods

We reviewed a prospective database of men undergoing primary, revision, and salvage PPs. No other changes to operative or perioperative techniques occurred after the change in irrigation solution. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate differences in infection rate with use of Betadine vs vancomycin/gentamicin irrigation. Potential confounders were reviewed.

Main Outcome Measure

The primary outcome was rate of PP infection before and after change of intraoperative irrigation.

Results

From 2014 to 2018, 217 patients underwent PP placement at our institution by a single surgeon; of whom, 21 (9.7%) experienced an infection (primary = 10 [7.1%], revision = 11 [17.19%], salvage = 0 [0%]). Overall, 152 (70%) received irrigation with Betadine and 65 (30%) with Vancomycin/Gentamicin. Univariate analysis demonstrated significantly increased infection rates with Betadine irrigation (odds ratio [OR]: 4.64, P = .006) and with revision surgery (OR: 2.68, P = .02). Significance of increased infection rate with Betadine was maintained (OR: 9.3; P = .025) after controlling for age, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, smoking, diabetes, primary vs revision/salvage, prior penile surgery, use of ectopic reservoir, and adjunctive glanulopexy.

Conclusions

Changing from intraoperative Betadine to vancomycin/gentamicin solution dramatically reduced infection rates among men undergoing PP placement in both primary and revision cases. We hypothesize that differences in infection rate may relate to the relative toxicity or non-sterile nature of Betadine.

Manka MG, Yang D, Andrews J, et al. Intraoperative Use of Betadine Irrigation is Associated With a 9-Fold Increased Likelihood of Penile Prosthesis Infection: Results From a Retrospective Case-Control Study. Sex Med 2020;8:422–427.

Clinical guidelines on erectile dysfunction surgery: EAU-AUA perspectives

INTRODUCTION

The implantation of a penile prosthesis is considered a third-line treatment and is indicated in patients who do not respond adequately to pharmacotherapy or require definitive treatment. Currently, the most used devices are 3-component penile prostheses, which presently account for more than 90% of the implants used.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed the evidence and the recommendations of the clinical practice guidelines regarding surgery in patients with erectile dysfunction.

RESULTS

The recommendations of the clinical practice guidelines on surgery in patients with erectile dysfunction are summarized as follows: men with erectile dysfunction should be informed about the option of penile prosthesis implant treatment, commenting on the benefits, risks and consequences; men with erectile dysfunction who have agreed to receive penile prosthesis should be advised on post-surgical expectations; penile prosthesis implants should not be performed in patients with systemic, cutaneous or urinary tract infection; in young men with erectile dysfunction and focal penile or pelvic arterial obstruction who do not have generalized vascular disease or veno-occlusive dysfunction, penile arterial reconstruction can be considered; in men with erectile dysfunction, penile venous surgery is not recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of penile prostheses offers high satisfaction rates to both the patient and his partner. However, it is crucial to adequately inform and warn patients about possible complications and consequences.

Risk factors associated with penile prosthesis infection: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to identify the factors associated with infection in patients who undergo penile prosthesis implantation.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review/meta-analysis, including clinical trials, quasi-experiments, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, and case-control studies. Searching was done in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. Participants were patients who had erectile dysfunction, regardless of the etiology, and underwent penile prosthesis implantation. Two researchers reviewed each reference by title and abstract. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan® 5.3).

RESULTS

A total of 513 studies were found with the search strategies. After excluding duplicates, 40 studies with a total of 175,592 patients were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Among patient characteristics, we found that diabetes mellitus and immunosuppression appear to have increase odds of infection. Related to the procedure, infection-retardant-coated penile prosthesis and primary (first) surgery appear to lower odds of infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes mellitus and immunosuppression were associated with increased infection rates; infection-retardant coating of the prosthesis and primary surgery were associated with reduced infection rates.

An update on: long-term outcomes of penile prostheses for the treatment of erectile dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

Penile prosthesis placement is the gold standard for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) refractory to medical therapy; however, limited data exist on the long-term outcomes of these devices.

AREAS COVERED

A PubMed search focused on long-term outcomes of penile prosthetics was performed. Studies with a follow-up of less than 5 years were excluded. Included studies were arranged chronologically by implant date to identify trends in device lifetime. Data were further scrutinized to separate device failure secondary to mechanical malfunction from device failure secondary to infection.

EXPERT OPINION

Limited data prevent accurate 15-year predictions for modern prosthetics. The 5- and 10-year overall survival of modern prosthetics is estimated to be 90.4% and 86.6%, respectively. Infection rates are estimated to be 1.5% and 1.8% at 8 and 10 years, respectively. While great strides have been made in device design, there is still potential for advancement in both infection rate reduction and mechanical improvement. The combination of increased collaboration between implanting urologists and engineers from prosthetic device companies and improved, prospectively collected data will usher prosthetic urology into its next era.

Infection Prevention Considerations for Complex Penile Prosthesis Recipients

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.

RECENT FINDINGS

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.

Diabetes Is a Risk Factor for Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Infection: Analysis of a Large Statewide Database

INTRODUCTION

Although diabetes mellitus (DM) is often discussed as a risk factor for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infection, the link between DM diagnosis and IPP infection remains controversial. High-quality population-based data linking DM to an increased risk of IPP infection have not been published.

AIM

To evaluate the association of DM with IPP infection in a large public New York state database.

METHODS

The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database was queried for men who underwent initial IPP insertion from 1995-2014. Diabetic patients were identified using ICD-9-CM codes. Patients presenting for first operation with diagnosis or Current Procedural Terminology codes suggestive of prior IPP surgery were excluded. Chi-squared analyses were performed to compare infection rates in diabetics and non-diabetics within the pre- and postantibiotic impregnated eras. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate whether or not DM was independently associated with IPP infection in the time periods before (1995-2003) and after (2004-2014) the widespread availability of antibiotic impregnated penile prostheses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Time to prosthesis infection was measured.

RESULTS

14,969 patients underwent initial IPP insertion during the study period. The overall infection rate was 343/14,969 (2.3%). Infections occurred at a median 3.9 months after implant (interquartile ratio: 1.0-25.0 months). Infectious complications were experienced by 3% (133/4,478) of diabetic patients and 2% (210/10,491) of non-diabetic patients (P < .001). Diabetes was associated with a significantly increased IPP infection risk on multivariable analysis controlling for age, race, comorbidities, insurance status, annual surgeon volume, and era of implantation (Hazard Ratio: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.05-1.66, P = .016).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis supports the notion that DM is a risk factor for IPP infection. This has important implications for patient selection and counseling, and raises the question of whether this increased risk can be mitigated by optimization of glycemic control before surgery. Lipsky MJ, Onyeji I, Golan R, et al. Diabetes Is a Risk Factor for Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Infection: Analysis of a Large Statewide Database. Sex Med 2019;7:35-40.

An update on the best approaches to prevent complications in penile prosthesis recipients

Placement of inflatable penile prosthesis is a procedure frequently performed for medication-refractory erectile dysfunction. Device implantation is not without risks, and as the frequency of device implantation increases, so do associated complications. The aim of this work is to review the most frequent operative complications associated with implantation of inflatable penile prostheses, and to review the best approaches to prevent these most common complications. Complications can broadly be categorized as infectious, noninfectious tissue-related, device-related, or related to patient and partner satisfaction. With understanding of these complications and ways to avoid them, as well as with appropriate patient selection and counseling, the inflatable penile prosthesis is an excellent option for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.

Erectile Dysfunction: AUA Guideline

PURPOSE

The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical strategy for the diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature using the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (search dates 1/1/1965 to 7/29/17) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction. Evidence-based statements were based on body of evidence strength Grade A, B, or C and were designated as Strong, Moderate, and Conditional Recommendations with additional statements presented in the form of Clinical Principles or Expert Opinions.

RESULTS

The American Urological Association has developed an evidence-based guideline on the management of erectile dysfunction. This document is designed to be used in conjunction with the associated treatment algorithm.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the shared decision-making process as a cornerstone for care, all patients should be informed of all treatment modalities that are not contraindicated, regardless of invasiveness or irreversibility, as potential first-line treatments. For each treatment, the clinician should ensure that the man and his partner have a full understanding of the benefits and risk/burdens associated with that choice.

Infection Retardant Coatings Impact on Bacterial Presence in Penile Prosthesis Surgery: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patients for positive culture rates with or without infection retardant coatings (IRC) penile prostheses (PPs) and to examine changes in culture positive isolates found in patients presenting overt clinical infection.

METHODS

Cultures were obtained from PPs immediately upon surgical exposure of the pump. 236 patients were broken down into 2 groups, with each further divided into 2 groups. The noninfected group included 208 patients: 133 with uncoated PPs and 75 with IRC implants. The infected group included 28 patients: 16 with uncoated PP and 12 with IRC inflatable penile prostheses (IPP). Additionally, sensitivity to the combination of tetracycline and rifampin were evaluated on all cultures.

RESULTS

In the noninfected group, culture positive isolates were found in 85 patients with uncoated PP's and in 32 patients with IRC implants [P value = 0.0003]. Cultures positive for Staphylococcus genus were found in 75 uncoated PP patients, while 20 patients with IRC implants had an isolate of this genus. In the infected group, culture positive isolates were found in 7 patients with uncoated PP and 6 patients with IRC IPPs [P value = 1.000]. Positive cultures for Staphylococcus genus were found in 6 patients with uncoated PP, while 3 patients with IRC IPP had an isolate of this genus. All bacterial isolates were sensitive to the combination of tetracycline and rifampin.

CONCLUSION

Positive bacterial cultures have been shown to be present on clinically uninfected IPPs at time of revision surgery. Culture isolates grown from patients with IRC IPPs reveal a nontraditional bacterial profile: fewer cultured isolates of Staphylococcus genus.

Infection risk of undergoing multiple penile prostheses: an analysis of referred patient surgical histories

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the gold standard for medically refractory erectile dysfunction. Infectious complications remain a significant concern in IPP revision surgery. We sought to evaluate the impact of number of IPP surgeries on subsequent infection rates. A retrospective analysis was performed on all new patients (self or outside provider referred) presenting for consideration of IPP revision or salvage surgery between 2013 and 2015. Histories were reviewed including number of prior IPPs, reason for evaluation, and rate, number, and timing of prior IPP infections. No patients were operated on by the primary investigator prior to data acquisition. We identified 44 patients with at least one prior IPP presenting for consultation regarding IPP revision/salvage. There were 88 IPPs placed by 28 different surgeons. In patients with two or more devices, 55% had at least two different surgeons. The most common reason for presentation was malfunction (52%). The risk of specific device infection was strongly correlated and increased based on number of prior IPPs: 1st (6.8%; 3/44), 2nd (18.2%; 4/22), 3rd (33.3%; 4/12), 4th (50%; 4/8), and 5th (100%; 2/2) (R² = 0.90, p = 0.01). Similarly, overall rates of infection positively correlated with number of prior IPP-related surgeries performed (R² = 0.97, p < 0.01). The median time to development of infection after most recent IPP surgery was 2 months (IQR 1-3.3 months). Infection rates of revision/salvage IPP surgery increase with each subsequent IPP placement or following IPP-related surgeries. The majority of patients referred for penile implant surgery can expect to have experienced at least one infection by their 4th device. These data represent a change in paradigm on revision prosthetic surgery.

Role of Penile Prosthesis in Priapism: A Review

Ischemic priapism is a urological emergency that has been associated with long-standing and irreversible adverse effects on erectile function. Studies have demonstrated a linear relationship between the duration of critically ischemic episodes and the subsequent development of corporal fibrosis and irreversible erectile function loss. Placement of a penile prosthesis is a well-established therapeutic option for the management of erectile dysfunction secondary to ischemic priapism, and will be the focus of this review. Review of the current literature demonstrates a growing utilization of penile prostheses in the treatment of erectile dysfunction secondary to ischemic priapism. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of randomized-controlled trials describing the use of prosthesis in ischemic priapism. As a result, there is a lack of consensus regarding the type of prosthesis (malleable vs. inflatable), timing of surgery (acute vs. delayed), and anticipated complications for each approach. Both types of prostheses yielded comparable complication rates, but the inflatable penile prosthesis have higher satisfaction rates. Acute treatment of priapism was associated with increased risk of prosthetic infection, and could potentially cause psychological trauma, whereas delayed implantation was associated with greater corporal fibrosis, loss of penile length, and increased technical difficulty of implantation. The paucity of high-level evidence fuels the ongoing discussion of optimal use and timing of penile prosthesis implantation. Current guidance is based on consensus expert opinion derived from small, retrospective studies. Until more robust data is available, a patient-centered approach and joint decision-making between the patient and his urologist is recommended.

Preoperative counseling and expectation management for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation

The inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the gold standard surgical treatment for medical refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). While the modern IPP has enjoyed high satisfaction rates as a product of its continued innovation, reliability, and performance, patient dissatisfaction can still occur. IPP implantation restores physiologic function with cosmetic and psychological consequences, both of which place inherent emphasis on preoperative counseling and expectation management. This review aims to highlight the complex nature of such counseling and provide practitioners with a roadmap to navigate the landscape. Preoperative counseling begins with appropriate patient selection and identification of those patients who are at risk for dissatisfaction as a result of personality characteristics. The informed consent provides a natural framework to discuss the host of complications and risks that are associated with surgery, including infection, device malfunction, damage to nearby structures, and device erosion. Device selection is a nuanced process that merges patient preference with clinical factors and consideration. We address device selection through a description of cylinder construction, pump design, and reservoir placement in the context of preoperative counseling. Lastly, we draw attention to expectation management with a specific focus on possible post-operative changes to penile length and sensation as well as partner involvement. The modern IPP provides excellent results with high patient and partner satisfaction. Ultimately, satisfaction is dependent on multiple factors, but providing accurate, realistic counseling and expectation management prepares patients for the best possible outcomes.

30-day adverse event rates following penile prosthesis surgery: an American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program based evaluation

Background

Commonly utilized as a third-line therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) management, the penile prostheses have become a staple treatment for ED refractory to pharmacological interventions. There is however a paucity of data in the literature pertaining to short-term adverse outcomes following penile prosthesis surgery. We thus sought to leverage the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) to evaluate such outcomes within 30 days of surgery in these patients. We hypothesized that such data will lead to a more informed patient-physician consultation.

Methods

Relying on the ACS-NSQIP database [2005–2013], patients undergoing penile prosthesis placement were identified utilizing the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes: 54400, 54401, 54405, 54406, 54407, 54408, 54410, 54411, 54416 and 54417. Outcomes assessed included system-wise categorized complications, length-of-stay (LOS), and re-intervention, readmission and 30-day mortality rates. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze available data. Multivariate analysis could not be performed due to small sample size.

Results

Overall, 98 cases of patients who underwent surgery for penile prosthesis placements between the years 2005 and 2013 were reported by the ACS-NSQIP affiliated hospitals. The median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 58–70 years). The overall 30-day complication rate was 11.3% (n=11); 5 of the 11 complications were infectious in etiology, and three were a postoperative blood transfusion event. The median LOS was 1 day. One (1.0%) patient needed to return to the operating room, two patients (2.6%) were readmitted and there was one (1.0%) death within 30 days of the original surgery.

Conclusions

Surgery for penile prosthesis appears to be a safe operation despite the routinely advanced age of the patients requiring it. Complications in the immediate postoperative setting are usually infectious. This data can be used in the clinical setting for a more informed patient-physician discussion and patient expectation management.

Impact of Surgeon Case Volume on Reoperation Rates after Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Surgery

PURPOSE

We investigated the impact of surgeon annual case volume on reoperation rates after inflatable penile prosthesis surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database was queried for inflatable penile prosthesis cases from 1995 to 2014. Multivariate proportional hazards regression was performed to estimate the impact of surgeon annual case volume on inflatable penile prosthesis reoperation rates. We stratified our analysis by indication for reoperation to determine if surgeon volume had a similar effect on infectious and noninfectious complications.

RESULTS

A total of 14,969 men underwent inflatable penile prosthesis insertion. Median followup was 95.1 months (range 0.5 to 226.7) from the time of implant. The rates of overall reoperation, reoperation for infection and reoperation for noninfectious complications were 6.4%, 2.5% and 3.9%, respectively. Implants placed by lower volume implanters were more likely to require reoperation for infection but not for noninfectious complications. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that compared with patients treated by surgeons in the highest quartile of annual case volume (more than 31 cases per year), patients treated by surgeons in the lowest (0 to 2 cases per year), second (3 to 7 cases per year) and third (8 to 31 cases per year) annual case volume quartiles were 2.5 (p <0.001), 2.4 (p <0.001) and 2.1 (p=0.01) times more likely to require reoperation for inflatable penile prosthesis infection, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated by higher volume implanters are less likely to require reoperation after inflatable penile prosthesis insertion than those treated by lower volume surgeons. This trend appears to be driven by associations between surgeon volume and the risk of prosthesis infection.

Technological Improvements in Three-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Design over the Past 40 Years

INTRODUCTION

The advent of the penile prosthesis revolutionized the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED), resulting in near-complete treatment efficacy and high patient satisfaction rates. While several types of penile prosthesis are available, the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the most commonly used device in the United States.

AIMS

To describe the key modifications to IPPs from the two major manufacturers-American Medical Systems (AMS) and Coloplast-since the invention of the IPP, and to relate these changes to improvements in prosthesis function and patient outcomes based on available literature.

METHODS

Review and evaluation of the literature between 1973 and present describing modifications in IPP design and the influence of these modifications on IPP durability and patient-related factors.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Data describing the impact of iterative improvements in three-piece IPP design on device function, durability, and patient outcomes.

RESULTS

There were progressive improvements in IPP technology from both major manufacturers not only on the durability of the prosthesis but also on patient outcomes, with fewer device failures and lower infection rates. Notable improvements include incorporation of kink-resistant tubing, changes in the weave or addition of shear- and infection-resistant coatings to cylinder layers, pump and tubing connection modifications, the addition of rear tip extenders, and the incorporation of lockout valves to prevent autoinflation.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous incremental modifications to the IPP from both major manufacturers since its invention have increased its durability and improved patient outcomes.

A practical overview of considerations for penile prosthesis placement

Penile prostheses have remained the gold-standard therapy for medically refractory erectile dysfunction (ED) since their popularization. Advances in device design and surgical techniques have yielded improved rates of infection, satisfaction, and mechanical survival of devices. Operative techniques in penile prosthesis surgery include the use of adjunctive procedures (such as ventral phalloplasty and release of the suspensory ligament), management of penile fibrosis, and manoeuvres to correct Peyronie's-disease-related curvature. Complications include urethral and corporal perforation, crossover, infection, impending erosion, and/or supersonic transporter deformity. Long-term data regarding mechanical, overall, and infection-free survival demonstrate excellent results, and, given the consistently high satisfaction rates and limited alternatives for medically refractory ED, penile prostheses are likely to remain a relevant and important treatment strategy for the foreseeable future.

Infections Associated with Inflatable Penile Prostheses

INTRODUCTION

The implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) has become a successful method for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Infections are rare but they can result in devastating complications following surgical implantation of the prosthesis.

AIM

To discuss pathogenesis, risk factors, and microbiology of IPP infections, summarize clinical manifestation and diagnostic methods, and discuss future directions of prevention and management.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed of all articles published from 1960 to present relating to IPP infections.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE AND RESULTS

Skin flora organisms such as Staphylococcus epidermis are the most common source of infection. Several host and surgical risk factors for prosthesis infection have been demonstrated, including uncontrolled diabetes mellitus and previous surgical interventions. Biofilms play an important role in the pathogenesis of device-related infections. Pain, fever, drainage, and device extrusions are suggestive of IPP infection. Preventive methods include preoperative skin cleansing, systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, and the use of surface-modified prostheses. The most frequently utilized surgical management is a single-stage approach that comprises aggressive irrigation and debridement, removal of all components of the infected prosthesis, and placement of a new IPP in the same surgical setting.

CONCLUSION

Advances in systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis, skin cleansing and surface-modification of the devices, as well as a number of other potentially protective measures, have decreased the rates of infections. Currently, most infected IPP are surgically managed by adopting the salvage approach. Al Mohajer M and Darouiche RO. Infections associated with inflatable penile prostheses. Sex Med Rev 2014;2:134-140.

History, Contemporary Outcomes, and Future of Penile Prostheses: A Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Since their introduction, penile prostheses have consistently remained a superior treatment option for men with erectile dysfunction (ED) refractory to conservative measures. Ongoing enhancements to prosthetic design, materials, and surgical techniques have resulted in improved outcomes.

AIM

To review available literature on notable historical advancements and improvements of the penile prosthesis, summarize contemporary outcomes of recent devices, and discuss possible future directions of the penile prosthesis.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed of all articles published from 1960 to present relating to penile prosthesis. Priority was given to series with 12 months of follow-up or greater, larger series, and studies reporting on outcomes of more recent prosthetic models.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Main outcomes included historical review of improvements leading to, and contemporary series reporting on rates of mechanical failures, infections, and satisfaction with penile prostheses.

RESULTS

Penile prostheses have undergone numerous enhancements since initial reports of synthetic materials utilized in the 1950s. Among others, recent notable device enhancements include Parylene coating, Bioflex® material, Inhibizone^TM antibacterial impregnation, hydrophilic coating, lockout valves, and easy release pump mechanisms, all of which have improved mechanical reliability, reduced infection rates, and/or improved patient satisfaction with penile prostheses. Contemporary series of 3-piece penile prostheses report mechanical survival of 81-94%, 68-89%, and 57-76% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Infection rates of current devices are 1-2% in first-time, low-risk populations, and 2-3% for higher risk groups, with patient and partner satisfaction at 92-100% and 91-95%, respectively. Two-piece and malleable devices are associated with slightly higher mechanical reliability and decreased patient satisfaction. Minimal data currently exist on the outcomes of selected patient populations, including Peyronie's disease and corporal fibrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Penile prostheses are associated with excellent, long-term outcomes and remain the gold-standard treatment for men with refractory ED. Additional research with prospective studies utilizing objective measures and standardized questionnaires is required. Trost L and Hellstrom WJG. History, contemporary outcomes, and future of penile prostheses: A review of the literature. Sex Med Rev 2013;1:150-163.

Significance of biofilm for the prosthetic surgeon

Biofilm formation on implanted medical devices is becoming more recognized as both a common finding and a potential problem. Although seen frequently in nature, these sequestered bacterial communities are proving to be an assiduous enemy as medical device technologies advance. The penile prosthesis has gone through many improvements, now with a more reliable mechanical function and a reduced infection rate. However, there remains a notable increase in infectious risk in revisions compared to novel cases, with many implants found to harbor a subclinical bacterial presence isolated in biofilms. This article focuses on recent updates in implant technology and surgical technique to combat infection, and reviews current research on biofilm prevention and treatment.

A population-based analysis of contemporary rates of reoperation for penile prosthesis procedures

OBJECTIVE

To perform a population-based comparison of inflatable vs semirigid penile prostheses and to determine contemporary rates of reoperation and identify factors impacting the type of prosthetic implanted.

METHODS

Patient-level discharge data and revisit files from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for semirigid and inflatable prosthesis procedures performed for erectile dysfunction from 2006 to 2009 in the state of California were examined. Regression analysis was performed to determine differences between the procedures in terms of infectious and noninfectious failure. Regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with revision and to identify associations between potential risk factors and the type of implant performed.

RESULTS

A total of 2263 cases were included in the study (1824 inflatable and 439 semirigid). The overall reoperation rate was 7.42%. There was no difference in the overall revision rate between the 2 groups (7.52% semirigid and 7.40% inflatable; P=.94). The reoperation rate secondary to infectious complications was 3.6% (4.5% semirigid vs 3.23% inflatable; P=.18). The revision rate secondary to noninfectious failure was 2.96% in the semirigid vs 4.17% in the inflatable group (P=.25). Medicaid insurance (odds ratio [OR], 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-3.61), African American race (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.20-2.49), age>80 (P=.046), and diabetes (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.59) were associated with receiving a semirigid implant.

CONCLUSION

Reoperation rates for infectious and noninfectious failure are equivalent between the semirigid and inflatable penile prostheses. Sociodemographic factors appear to significantly influence the type of prosthesis a patient receives.