Diagnosis, treatment and prevention of penile prosthesis infection

Carson, Culley C.

doi:10.1038/sj.ijir.3901091

Cited by 129 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(37 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…18 Like all prosthetic devices, penile prostheses are subject to infection by a variety of organisms. 3 Prosthesis infections can be subdivided into clinically apparent and subclinical presentations. Although many clinically apparent infections are obvious, with pain, purulence, erythema, device extrusion, or leukocytosis, suspected subclinical infections may be more subtle.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 Nonetheless, IPPs remain subject to complications such as infection, erosion, and mechanical malfunction. 3 It has been suggested 4,5 that surgeon and facility volume of IPP implantation may influence patient outcomes. [6][7][8] We sought to use a practice pattern questionnaire to identify what differences in technique, if any, exist between surgeons with a low volume of penile prosthesis implantations (LVI) and those with a high volume (HVI).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Practice patterns of urologists performing penile prosthesis surgery vary based on surgeon volume: results of a practice pattern survey

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) are widely accepted as a means of surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction. It has been suggested that surgeon volume influences patient outcomes after IPP implantation. We used a written questionnaire to ask urologists who perform IPP surgery about their practice patterns. Our analysis correlated specific practices to self-reported IPP volume. A written questionnaire was distributed to 1968 urologists. Responses were collated and analyzed. Respondents were defined as high volume implanters (HVIs) if they placed X20 IPPs in the year preceding the survey, or low volume implanters (LVIs) if they placed p19. Our main outcome measures were surgeon volume, approach to initial IPP placement (penoscrotal vs infrapubic), strategy for reservoir management during IPP revision surgery, strategy for reservoir replacement when deemed necessary, approach to suspected IPP infections, and utilization of revision washout protocols. This study does not require institutional review board approval from our institution, given that patient information is not used at all, this is a practitioner survey only. HVIs were significantly more likely to incorporate both penoscrotal and suprapubic approaches into their armamentarium, more likely to manipulate previously placed IPP reservoirs during revision surgery, and more likely to operate immediately when confronted with a suspected IPP infection. They were also more likely than LVIs to use the Mulcahy revision washout protocol. There are significant differences in the self-reported practice patterns of HVIs and LVIs. The importance of these differences for patient outcomes remains undefined.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practice patterns of urologists performing penile prosthesis surgery vary based on surgeon volume: results of a practice pattern survey

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to the complications in the device, such as leakage of fluid, aneurysmal dilatations of the cylinders, a tear in the synthetic material, and corporaglanular deformity, in the penile prostheses providing satisfying results in patients with erectile dysfunction and their partners (25), infection is the most common and the most serious complication that can lead to penile shortening, urethral injury, and tissue loss (Table 5) (26,27). Particularly, patients with diabetes mellitus, suppressed immunity, and an injured spinal cord are exposed to infection more frequently.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Results of Penile Prosthesis Implantation for Treating Organic Erectile Dysfunction

Kadıhasanoğlu¹,

Erkan²,

Yücetaş³

et al. 2016

Istanbul Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the second most common sexual dysfunction in men after premature ejaculation (1) and is defined as "the inability of a man to have and/or maintain adequate penile erection for sexual intercourse for at least 6 months" (2). In a community-based study conducted by the Turkish Society of Andrology on the prevalence of ED, its prevalence was found to be 69.2% (33.2% as mild, 27.5% as moderate, and 8.5% as advanced ED) (3). According to the findings of the Massachusetts Male Aging Study (MMAS), which is accepted to be a reference as one of the most important international epidemiological studies, of male patients between the ages of 40 and 70 years, 17% had mild ED, 25% had moderate ED, and 10% had severe ED (4). Based on these findings, it is estimated that the number of ED patients will increase to approximately 322 million worldwide in 2015 (5). It has been demonstrated that frequent ED can seriously affect the quality of life of the spouse as well as the patient (4).In basic scientific and clinical studies conducted on the physiology and pathophysiology of erection, it has been revealed that ED is a vascular pathology associated with risk factors, such as cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, atherosclerosis, lipid disorders, smoking, diabetes mellitus, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and a sedentary lifestyle (2, 6). Apart from the abovementioned medical problems, iatrogenic factors, such as pelvic surgeries, particularly radical prostatectomy where even bilateral neuroprotective is applied, are also among the important factors that play a role in the occurrence of ED (7).Currently, lifestyle changes and primary and secondary care conservative therapies, including medical treatment choices applied orally or through intracavernous injection, are the first techniques performed for patients with ED. Phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors, intracavernous injections, intraurethral alprostadil, and vacuum devices can fail in approximately 80% of patients because they discontinue the treatment (8, 9). In such a situation or in ED patients, particularly in the case of ED with an organic origin, with no adequate response to the treatment, despite invasive and costly intervention, flexible or inflatable penile prosthesis implantation, which has been The Clinical Results of Penile Prosthesis Implantation for the Treatment of Organic Erectile DysfunctionIntroduction: The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical results of penile prosthesis implantation for the treatment of the patients with organic erectile dysfunction (ED).Methods: Medical records of penile prosthesis implantation for the treatments of 36 patients with organic ED between January 2006 and December 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. The demographic data of the patients, the causes and duration of ED, operative time, hospitalization time, types of prosthesis, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were evaluated. Results:The mean age of patients was 53.94±9.66 years and the mean body mass index of the patients was 27....

show abstract

“…Infections remain the most common and serious surgical complications with the risk of further penile shortening, urethral injury with erosion and tissue loss [8] [9]. Patients affected by diabetes, immunosuppression or spinal cord injury are at increased risk of infectious complications [10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infrapubic versus Penoscrotal Approaches for Implantation of Semi-Rigid Penile Prosthesis

Shebl¹,

Ali²

2017

OJU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Modification of surgical techniques to minimize wound infections in penile implant surgery using malleable prosthesis which is easy to use, of very low risk of mechanical failure and is financially suitable to improve outcome and ensures less complications. The aim of the study is to compare infrapubic approach and Penoscrotal approach in penile semi-rigid prosthesis implantation surgery. Patients and methods: Fifty patients were randomly divided into two groups and each group underwent one approach. Results: No statically significant differences were found between both groups in terms of operative time. Corporeal cross over was the most common intraoperative complications, 3 cases in IP approach and 6 cases in PS but not statistically significant. Peyronie's disease patients underwent penile implant through infrapubic approach in 3 cases and PS in 4 cases with one recorded complication of keloid formations with IP. Urethral false passage reported only in one case with PS approach without affecting the procedure. Only minor complications including superficial wound infection which was significantly more with PS, 6/25 (24%) and IP 1/25 (4%), p value = 0.041. Penile and scrotal edema was common with IP approach (92%) in comparison with PS approach (60%). The urethral catheter can be abandoned with IP to avoid the risk of catheterizations. No significant relation between diabetes and infections and no erosions were encountered. Conclusion: Through this research work, infrapubic approach is better than Penoscrotal approach even if it is not commonly used by surgeon.

show abstract

Diagnosis, treatment and prevention of penile prosthesis infection

Cited by 129 publications

References 22 publications

Practice patterns of urologists performing penile prosthesis surgery vary based on surgeon volume: results of a practice pattern survey

Practice patterns of urologists performing penile prosthesis surgery vary based on surgeon volume: results of a practice pattern survey

Clinical Results of Penile Prosthesis Implantation for Treating Organic Erectile Dysfunction

Infrapubic versus Penoscrotal Approaches for Implantation of Semi-Rigid Penile Prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About