Penile prosthesis infections

Dk, Montague; Angermeier, KW; Lakin, M.

doi:10.1038/sj.ijir.3900768

Cited by 102 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A similar lack of correlation between diabetes and penile prosthesis infection was reported by Montague et al, who reported a 2% incidence of prosthesis infection in non-diabetic patients and a 2.2% incidence in diabetics which was parallel to this study [9].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

“…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

show abstract

“…Standard published infection rates vary from 2-7.7% on first-time IPPs, whereas infection rates increase dramatically on replacement IPPs. 1,5,10,11 For example, Jarow showed a first-time IPP replacement infection rate of 1.8% compared with an infection rate of 13.3% in revision surgery. 11 In recent literature, revision surgery infectious complications have been noted to be around 5-18%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does a replacement or revision of an inflatable penile prosthesis lead to decreased patient satisfaction?

Caire

Boonjindasup

2011

Int J Impot Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To analyze the reason for replacement, revision and overall satisfaction of a cohort who underwent surgical replacement of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). A cohort of 105 patients who underwent IPP replacement from 2005-2007 was retrieved from the prosthesis database. Approximately 21.9% (23) underwent replacement or revision of their prosthesis because of complications, and were further analyzed. Reason for removal was stratified into infectious and non-infectious (erosion, non-function and patient discomfort). Age, race (African American vs nonAfrican American), smoking history, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease and hyperlipidemia were stratified by reason for removal. Finally, we contacted patients and recorded subjective satisfaction with their IPP. The reason for removal was most commonly because of a nonfunctional IPP (47.8%), followed by infection (30.4%), erosion (17.4%) and patient discomfort (4.3%). Age and race did not show a significant difference when analyzing reason for replacement (P40.05). Patients who were smokers (P ¼ 0.907) had hypertension (P ¼ 0.554), diabetes (P ¼ 0.591) or hyperlipidemia (P ¼ 0.219) did not have significantly higher infection rates. Approximately 58.3% were satisfied with their prosthesis, 75% would have the surgery performed again and 91.7% would still recommend prosthesis surgery. Device malfunction was the primary reason for replacement/removal at our institution. Despite the complications of prosthesis reoperation, the majority of patients were still satisfied with their prosthesis, would have the surgery performed again and would recommend prosthesis surgery to a friend.

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

Penile prosthesis infections

Cited by 102 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

Does a replacement or revision of an inflatable penile prosthesis lead to decreased patient satisfaction?

Clinical Results of Penile Prosthesis Implantation for Treating Organic Erectile Dysfunction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About