Lentz, Aaron

Abstract Background 0.05% Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is now commonly used as an antiseptic irrigation for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery. Limited in vitro data suggest compatibility of 0.05% CHG with antibiotic impregnated IPP devices; however, very little clinical research exists to guide use of 0.05% CHG in this population. Aim Assess the relationship of 0.05% CHG and antibiotic impregnated IPP infection in a large multi-institutional cohort. Methods We retrospectively reviewed a multi-institutional cohort of patients who underwent antibiotic impregnated IPP implantation. We identified cases using intraoperative 0.05% CHG and an equal number of consecutive control cases without 0.05% CHG use from each center for comparison. The primary outcome was IPP infection requiring explantation. Patient demographics and surgical variables were analyzed using chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression to identify variables associated with infection. Outcomes The primary outcome was IPP infection requiring device explanation. Results Among 14 participating institutions, 761 cases using an antibiotic impregnated IPP were analyzed. Of these, 348 (45.7%) had 0.05% CHG used during the case. Median follow-up was 4 months (interquartile range 1-12) for the 0.05% CHG group and 8 months (interquartile range 2-21) for the control group. Intraoperative 0.05% CHG utilization was not associated with antibiotic impregnated IPP infection rate (1.9% vs. 2.0%, P = .9). On multivariable analysis, prior IPP infection (OR 6.32, 95% CI 1.32-30.2, P = .021) and prior priapism (OR 10.01, 95% CI 1.18-89.7, P = .039) were associated with increased infection risk. Clinical implications The use of 0.05% CHG irrigation with antibiotic impregnated IPPs was associated with similar infection rates compared to antibiotic irrigation. Strengths and limitations Limitations include the use of a historical comparator cohort which may introduce unknown confounders, practice variation between multiple sites, shorter follow-up in the 0.05% CHG cohort, and the low incidence of IPP infection which may limit statistical power despite a large sample. The major strengths include the large, multi-institutional cohort, and the use of consecutive patients to minimize selection bias. Conclusion 0.05% CHG utilization was not associated with infection rates in antibiotic impregnated IPPs.

Objectives To evaluate the pre‐ and intraoperative variables that impact the integrity of the corporal bodies over time after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement, as predictors of intraoperative corporal perforation and delayed cylinder complications have not been well characterized. Patients and Methods We retrospectively reviewed a 16‐centre multi‐institutional database of IPP surgeries performed by experienced implanters from 2016 to 2021. Poor corporal integrity (PCI) was defined as intraoperative (iPCI) corporal complications or postoperative (pPCI) corporal complications. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of PCI, iPCI, and pPCI. Primary outcomes included intra‐ and postoperative corporal complications. Results We identified 5153 patients for analysis from 5406 IPP cases, finding 152 (2.95%) cases of PCI. On multivariable analysis, predictors of PCI included revision IPP surgery (odds ratio [OR] 8.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.15–12.92; P < 0.001), sequential dilatation (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.32–3.39; P = 0.002), coronary artery disease (CAD)/peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.18–2.77; P = 0.006), older age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.04; P = 0.013), and corporal scarring (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.0–2.5; P = 0.049). Predictors of iPCI included revision IPP surgery (OR 7.34, 95% CI 4.18–12.88; P < 0.001), corporal scarring (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.64–4.69; P < 0.001), radiation therapy (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.0–5.04; P = 0.049), and older age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.0–1.05; P = 0.025). Revision IPP surgery (OR 7.92, 95% CI 3.69–17.01; P < 0.001), sequential dilatation (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.61–7.19; P = 0.001), CAD/PVD (OR 2.98, 95% CI 1.56–5.72; P = 0.001), and history of priapism (OR 3.59, 95% CI 1.08–11.99; P = 0.038) were predictive of pPCI. Conclusion Coronary artery disease/PVD, being of older age, having corporal scarring, undergoing IPP revision surgery and sequential dilatation were predictive risk factors for complications associated with PCI. Identifying patients who are at risk of having PCI may improve patient‐specific counselling, consideration of referral to more experienced implanters, and surgical planning to potentially promote longer‐term device viability.

Abstract Background Variations in climate have been associated with a greater risk of surgical site infections, urinary tract infections, and changes in the skin microbiome; however, limited data exist on the impact of climate on inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infections. Aim We sought to evaluate the impact of climate on the risk of IPP infections in a large international, multicenter cohort. Methods We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients undergoing IPP surgery. We then evaluated whether the month or season, during which surgery was performed, affected device infections. Implant infections were defined as infections requiring device explantation. A univariate logistic regression analysis was undertaken. Outcomes Our primary outcome was implant infection. Results A total of 5289 patients with a mean age of 62.2 ± 10.8 years received IPP placement. There was a fairly even distribution of implants performed in each season. A total of 103 (1.9%) infections were recorded. There were 32 (31.1%) IPP infections in patients who underwent surgery in the summer, followed by 28 (27.2%) in the winter, 26 (25.2%) in the spring, and 17 (16.5%) in the fall. No statistically significant differences were recorded in terms of season (P = .19) and month (P = .29). The mean daily temperature (P = .43), dew point (P = .43), and humidity (P = .92) at the time of IPP placement was not associated with infection. Clinical Implications These findings provide reassurance to prosthetic urologists that infection reduction strategies do not need to be tailored to local climate. Strengths and Limitations Climate data were not directly recorded for each hospital, but rather based on the monthly averages in the city where the surgery was performed. Conclusion The climate at time of IPP placement and time of year of surgery is not associated with IPP infection risk.

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 &lt; .001], and [2.5% vs 12.5; P &lt; .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.