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

Mandava, Sree Harsha; Şerefoğlu, Ege Can; Freier, Matthew T.; Wilson, Steven K.; Hellstrom, Wayne J.G.

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.022

Cited by 106 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…15 A potential rationale for this dramatic switch from MPs to IPPs in the last 10 years could be credited to the enhancement of IPPs with infection retardant coatings, which have decreased the infection rate by 50%. 16,17 Future studies of which patients are still receiving a MP may provide insight into the decision making process for urologists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National Practice Patterns of Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction with Penile Prosthesis Implantation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National Practice Patterns of Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction with Penile Prosthesis Implantation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the latest devices and techniques, those rates have effectively halved [29]. Mandava et al reported primary implant infection rates with non-coated at 2.32% and coated IPPs at 0.89% [30]. Another study reported coated primary implant infection rates of 0 of 223 in non-diabetic patients and 1% for diabetic patients.…”

Section: Current Infection Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Status of Biofilms in Penile Implants

Faller

Köhler

2017

Microorganisms

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Erectile dysfunction is prevalent among men and will continue to become more so with the aging population. Of the available treatment options, implantable prosthetic devices are typically thought of as a third line treatment even though they have the highest satisfaction rate and continually improving success rates. Infection and mechanical failure are the most common reasons for implant revision in the past. Since the development of more reliable devices, bacterial biofilms are coming to the forefront of discussion as causes of required revision. Biofilms are problematic as they are ubiquitous and exceedingly difficult to prevent or treat.

show abstract

“…Despite careful work and the use of copious antibiotic irrigation of the implant space and systemic prophylactic antibiotics, the incidence of infection ranges between 1% and 6.5% (1, 8). These rates may further decline by 50% with the use of drug-coated prostheses for both first-time and repeat implantations (9, 10). Although infection rates are low, morbidity due to infection is serious.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-infected penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery; comparison between antibiotic coated and non - coated devices

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:Aim of this study is to investigate bacterial growth on non-infected devices and compare antibiotic-coated and non-coated implants.Materials and methods:The charts of 71 patients who underwent revision surgeries for penile prosthesis between 1995 and 2013 were reviewed. Of those, 31 devices were antibiotic-coated prostheses, while 40 of the implants were non-coated. Swab cultures were routinely obtained from corporal, pump or reservoir site during the operation. If a bacterial biofilm was determined on the prosthesis, it was also cultured.Results:A total of 5 different organisms were cultured from 18 patients. Of them, 4 devices were antibiotic-coated and the other 14 were non-coated devices. Staphylococcus epidermidis was the most common organism, while Staphylococcus hominis, beta hemolitic streptococcus, Escherichia coli and Proteus mirabilis were also cultured. All patients who had positive cultures were treated with appropriate antibiotics for four weeks postoperatively. Median follow-up time was 41 months, ranging between 8 and 82 months. One prosthesis (non-coated) became clinically infected in the follow-up period with a totally different organism. Culture positivity rates of antibiotic-coated and non-coated devices were 13% and 35% respectively and the result was significant (p=0.00254).Conclusions:Positive bacterial cultures are present on non-infected penile prostheses at revision surgeries in some of the patients. Antibiotic coated prostheses have much less positive cultures than non-coated devices.

show abstract

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

Cited by 106 publications

References 25 publications

National Practice Patterns of Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction with Penile Prosthesis Implantation

National Practice Patterns of Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction with Penile Prosthesis Implantation

The Status of Biofilms in Penile Implants

Non-infected penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery; comparison between antibiotic coated and non - coated devices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About