Back to Authors

Perito, Paul

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4979-6308

Mayo Clinic

Perito Urology, Coral Gables, Florida

Citations 31

(105) A Multicenter Analysis of the AUA Recommended Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Penile Implantation Results in Higher, not Lower, Infection Risk
Barham, David , Swerdloff, Daniel , Ziegelmann, Matthew , Simhan, J, Hatzichristodoulou, Georgios , Hotaling, James M. , Lentz, A, Sadeghi‐Nejad, Hossein , Osmonov, Daniar , Pearce, Ian , Perito, Paul , Yafi, Faysal A. , Hammad, Muhammed , Hammad, Muhammed A M , Hammad, M, Pyrgidis, Nikolaos , Renterghem, Koenraad van , Alwaal, Amjad , Gross, Martin , Simhan, Jay , Hsieh, T, Warner, N, Park, S H

The Journal of Sexual Medicine | May 22, 2023 | Volume: 20 | Issue: Supplement_1 | Pages: No page available

10.1093/jsxmed/qdad060.100 Get It

Abstract Introduction The American Urological Association (AUA) recommendations on antibiotic prophylaxis in penile implant surgery are based on low quality evidence and expert opinion. Recent evidence suggests the recommended regimens may be suboptimal. Objective To determine if the AUA recommended antibiotic regimen (vancomycin + gentamicin) for primary penile implant surgery is associated with a higher infection risk than non-standard regimens. Methods We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing primary IPP surgery. Patients undergoing revision surgery or with a history of IPP placement were excluded. Additionally, patients who underwent concomitant procedures for Peyronie’s disease or stress urinary incontinence were excluded. Patients were divided into those receiving standard AUA antibiotic prophylaxis (vancomycin + gentamicin) and those receiving any other (non-standard) antibiotic prophylaxis. The time to postoperative device explanation due to infection via a Cox regression model, the microorganisms involved, and the management of patients with device infection were evaluated. A subgroup analysis to identify the appropriate dosage of gentamicin was also performed. Results 4,161 patients underwent primary IPP placement (2,411 received vancomycin + gentamicin and 1,750 received other regimens). The infection rate was similar between groups, 1.0 vs 1.2% for standard vs non-standard prophylaxis. In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, the use of vancomycin + gentamicin (HR: 2.74, 95%CI: 1.38-5.41, p=0.004) and diabetes (HR: 1.87, 95%CI: 1.03-3.39, p=0.04) were significantly associated with higher risk of device explantation due to infection. Concomitant infusion of antifungals (HR: 0.08, 95%CI: 0.03-0.19, p<0.001) was associated with lower risk of infection. Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli were the most frequently cultured microorganisms. Device infection was most commonly managed with salvage using a malleable prosthesis (40.4%). In patients of both groups receiving gentamicin as part of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, the use of weight-based gentamicin compared to 80 mg gentamicin was associated with similar risk of device explantation due to infection (HR: 2.88, 95% CI: 0.83 to 10, p = 0.1). Conclusions Vancomycin + gentamicin for antibiotic prophylaxis in primary penile implant surgery is independently associated with a higher infection risk than non-standard antibiotic regimens while antifungal use is associated with lower infection risk. There does not appear to be a difference in weight-based vs low dose (80mg) gentamicin on infection risk. Our results further demonstrate the importance of antifungal use in prophylaxis regimens. Additionally, a critical review of the recommended prophylactic regimens is needed. Tailoring individual regimens to local antibiograms may provide the best infection prevention. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast, Boston Scientific, Antares Pharma, Clarus Therapeutics, Cynosure, Promescent, Sprout, Viome.
Initial safety outcomes for the Rigicon Infla10® inflatable penile prosthesis
Wilson, Steven K. , Wen, Lexiaochuan , Rossello, Mariano, Maria, Pedro , Carrion, Rafael , Perito, Paul , Ralph, David , Carvajal, Alejandro , Chung, Eric , Antonini, Gabriele , Ozturk, Metin Ishak

BJU International | January 12, 2023 | Volume: 131 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 729-733

10.1111/bju.15960 Get It

Objective To analyse data from patient information forms (PIFs) submitted to the manufacturer of a new three‐piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), the Rigicon Infla10®, to summarize early outcomes. Methods A retrospective review of PIFs from 319 patients implanted with the IPP between 6 January 2019 and 31 December 2021 was performed to assess device durability and rates of reoperation for infection, mechanical failure or medical reasons. Results The mean ± sd (range) follow‐up was 21.2 ± 11 (5–36) months and the mean ± sd patient age was 58.5 ± 8.7 years. Of the total, 4.4% of devices required removal or revision. Complications included mechanical failure (2.5%) and component migration (0.7%). No infections were observed in this series. One patient (0.4%) required revision for inadequate straightening of Peyronie's disease. Three patients (0.9%) requested device removal because of dissatisfaction. A total of 95.6% of the Rigicon Infla10 devices were free from explant or revision 21 months after the original implant date. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed the rates of cumulative survival of the device at 12, 24, 36 months were 95.6%, 94.7% and 93.7%, respectively. Conclusions The vast majority of the early Rigicon Infla10 IPPs implanted prior to January 2022 were included in this retrospective analysis of volunteered PIFs. These early results demonstrate initial durability from reoperation equivalent to that of other contemporary devices.
Impact of Antimicrobial Dipping Solutions on Postoperative Infection Rates in Patients with Diabetes Undergoing Primary Insertion of a Coloplast Titan Inflatable Penile Prosthesis
Towe, Maxwell , Huynh, Linda My , Osman, Mohamad M. , El‐Khatib, Farouk M. , Andrianne, Robert, Barton, Gregory J. , Campbell, Jeffrey , Clavell-Hernández, Jonathan , Connor, Jessica, Gross, Martin , Guillum, Ross, Guise, Amy, Hatzichristodoulou, Georgios , Henry, Gerard D., Hsieh, Tung-Chin, Jenkins, Lawrence C. , Koprowski, Christopher D. , Lee, Kook B., Lentz, Aaron , Munarriz, Ricardo , Osmonov, Daniar , Pan, Shu, Parikh, Kevin , Park, Sung Hun , Patel, Amir Shareza, Perito, Paul , Sadeghi‐Nejad, Hossein , Sempels, Maxime, Simhan, Jay , Wang, Run , Yafi, Faysal A. , Broderick, Gregory, Jenkins, Lawrence , Broderick, Gregory A. , Burnett, Arthur L. “Bud” , Connor, Jessica, Hsieh, Tung‐Chin

The Journal of Sexual Medicine | August 15, 2020 | Volume: 17 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 2077-2083

10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.07.009 Get It

Abstract Background Modern-day penile prostheses use infection retardant coating to decrease rates of postoperative infection, subsequently reducing explantation and revision rates as well. The Coloplast Titan models are dipped into antimicrobial solutions right before implantation, and the components used for dipping can be tailored toward the patient. Aim To compare infection, explantation, and revision rates among different dipping solutions used before implantation for patients with diabetes receiving a Coloplast Titan implant. Methods We systematically reviewed 932 patients with diabetes receiving a primary penile implant across 18 different centers from the period April 2003 to August 2018. Of those patients, 473 received a Coloplast device, whereas 459 received an AMS device. Data regarding the type of antimicrobial solution used before implantation were recorded for 468 patients receiving a Coloplast Titan, including whether or not they suffered a postoperative infection and if they underwent explantation and/or revision. Outcome rates were compared using Fisher’s exact and Pearson’s chi-square tests, and logistic regression modeling was performed to account for covariates. Outcomes The main outcome measures of this study were postoperative infection, explantation, and revision rates. Results Of the total 932 patients reviewed, 33 suffered a postoperative infection. Of 468 patients receiving Coloplast implants, there was a 3.4% infection rate. The most commonly used antibiotic combination before dipping was vancomycin + gentamicin (59.0%). There was a significantly lower rate of postoperative infection, explantation, and revision when vancomycin + gentamicin was used than those associated with the use of all other dipping solutions ([1.4% vs 6.4%; P = .004], [1.1% vs 8.3%; P < .001], and [2.5% vs 12.5; P < .001], respectively). After adjusting for age, body mass index, preoperative blood glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c, the use of other dips was an independent predictor of postoperative infection (odds ratio: 0.191; P = .049). The inclusion of rifampin in the dipping solution trended toward being a significant risk factor for infection (P = .057). Including antifungals in the dipping solution did not affect infection (P = .414), explantation (P = .421), or revision (P = .328) rates. Clinical Implications Vancomycin + gentamicin was the most efficacious combination of antibiotics used for dipping in terms of preventing postoperative infection and subsequent explantation and revision. Strengths and Limitations Data were sampled across multiple institutions providing a large sample that may be more representative of the population of interest. A key limitation of the study was its retrospective nature, which prevented us from controlling certain variables. Conclusion The use of rifampin did not provide the same type of protection, possibly representing a shift in resistance patterns of common bacteria responsible for device infection.
A Multicenter Investigation Examining American Urological Association Recommended Antibiotic Prophylaxis vs Nonstandard Prophylaxis in Preventing Device Infections in Penile Prosthesis Surgery in Diabetic Patients
Towe, Maxwell , Osman, Mohamad M. , Huynh, Linda My , El‐Khatib, Farouk M. , Andrianne, Robert, Gross, Martin , Guise, Amy, Hatzichristodoulou, Georgios , Henry, Gerard D., Clavell-Hernández, Jonathan , Hsieh, Tung-Chin, Jenkins, Lawrence C. , Lentz, Aaron , Munarriz, Ricardo , Osmonov, Daniar , Park, Sung Hun , Perito, Paul , Sadeghi‐Nejad, Hossein , Sempels, Maxime, Simhan, Jay , Wang, Run , Yafi, Faysal A. , Broderick, Gregory, Jenkins, Lawrence , Rezaee, Michael E. , Broderick, Gregory A. , Burnett, Arthur L. “Bud” , Hsieh, Tung‐Chin

Journal of Urology | June 10, 2020 | Volume: 204 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 969-975

10.1097/ju.0000000000001158 Get It

392 Do We Really Need a Catheter Post IPP? Urinary Retention Prevalence and Considerations
Wen, Lu, Suarez-Sarmiento, A.J., Suarez‐Sarmiento, Alfredo, Brennan, Mary-Lou, Dodge, Nicole, Houlihan, Matthew, Köhler, Tobias , Perito, Paul

The Journal of Sexual Medicine | January 1, 2020 | Volume: 17 | Issue: Supplement_1 | Pages: S112-S112

10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.11.236 Get It

389 Penile Prosthesis Glans Hypermobility Scale (GHS): Incidence, Severity, and Predictors in a Multi-Institutional Series
Suarez‐Sarmiento, Alfredo, Houlihan, Matthew, Brennan, M., Perito, Paul , Köhler, Tobias , Alom, Mulham , Ziegelmann, Matthew , Trost, L., Fakhoury, M.

The Journal of Sexual Medicine | January 1, 2020 | Volume: 17 | Issue: Supplement_1 | Pages: S110-S111

10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.11.233 Get It

105 Impact of Antimicrobial Dipping Solutions on Post-Operative Infection Rates in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Primary Insertion of a Coloplast Titan Inflatable Penile Prosthesis
Osman, Mohamad M. , Andrianne, Robert, Guise, Amy, Hatzichristodoulou, Georgios , Henry, G.D., Hsieh, Tung‐Chin , Lentz, A.C., Munarriz, Ricardo , Osmonov, Daniar , Perito, Paul , Sadeghi‐Nejad, Hossein , Simhan, Jay , Wang, R., Yafi, Faysal A. , Collaborators, D., Broderick, Gregory A. , Burnett, Arthur L. “Bud” , Gross, Martin , Jenkins, Lawrence C. , Lentz, A.C., Park, S.

The Journal of Sexual Medicine | January 1, 2020 | Volume: 17 | Issue: Supplement_1 | Pages: S25-S25

10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.11.051 Get It

106 Immediate Preoperative Blood Glucose and Hemoglobin A1c Levels are not Predictive of Post-Operative Infections in Diabetic Men Undergoing Penile Prosthesis Placement
Osman, Mahdi, Andrianne, Robert, Burnett, A.L., Guise, Amy, Hatzichristodoulou, Georgios , Henry, G.D., Hsieh, Tung‐Chin , Lentz, A.C., Munarriz, Ricardo , Osmonov, Daniar , Park, S., Perito, Paul , Sadeghi‐Nejad, Hossein , Simhan, Jay , Wang, R., Yafi, Faysal A. , Collaborators, D., Broderick, Gregory A. , Gross, Martin , Henry, G.D., Jenkins, Lawrence C. , Lentz, A.C., Park, S Hun, Wang, R.

The Journal of Sexual Medicine | January 1, 2020 | Volume: 17 | Issue: Supplement_1 | Pages: S25-S26

10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.11.052 Get It