Does Surgical Approach Affect the Incidence of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Infection?

Current status of penile prosthesis implantation

“…We found no difference in the infection rate between diabetics and nondiabetics [30] and neither did Garber and Marcus [27]. Bishop et al [31] found an increased risk of infections in diabetics if their glycosylated hemoglobin was above 11.5%.…”

“…In 360 primary implants, an infection rate of 1.7% was found and there was no significant difference in infection rates between the infrapubic and penoscrotal approaches [27]. Another study revealed a 1.8% infection rate in 114 primary implants, a 13.3% infection rate in 30 revisions or reimplants, and a 21.7% infection rate in 23 implants associated with reconstructive surgery [28].…”

Infection Retardant Coated Inflatable Penile Prostheses Decrease the Incidence of Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Infection Related Complications/ No. Implanted IPPs (% of total) N/C IPPs Carson 11 31/1,944 (19.6) Droggin et al 12 3/94 (0.9) Eid et al 13 6/116 (1.2) Garber et al 14 6/360 (3.6) Jarow 15 2/114 (1.2) Montague 16 15/556 (5.6) Montague et al 17 Although IPPs immersed in R/G seemed to have the greatest infection decreasing capability (RR 0.55, fig. 2, B), to our knowledge there is only 1 report on which to base these findings.…”

“…[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] However, to our knowledge a meta-analysis has not been done to evaluate these innovations.…”

Penile prosthesis coating and the reduction of postoperative infection

“…One study focused on whether surgical approach affected the incidence of penile prosthesis infection. In 360 primary implants with an overall infection rate of 1.7%, there appeared to be no difference in infection rate when the scrotal and infrapubic approaches to inflatable penile prosthesis implantation were compared [13]. Whether patients with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk for infection after penile prosthesis surgery is unclear.…”