Eftekharzadeh, Sahar

Abstract Introduction Infection following inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement is an uncommon yet serious complication, and its management poses significant clinical challenges. IPP infection management strategies continue to evolve, however, multicenter and robust studies evaluating and describing current practice patterns are lacking. Objective Using a large cohort from tertiary IPP referral centers in the United States to evaluate current infection management practice patterns and to identify factors that could predict the approach to managing IPP infections. Methods We queried a retrospective 14-center multi-institutional database for patients with IPP infections between April 2017 and January 1/2025. Patients were categorized by infection management strategy, which included device explant, malleable salvage, and 3-piece IPP salvage. Patient characteristics were compared using chi-square and independent t-tests. Multinomial analysis was performed to investigate patient and perioperative factors associated with management strategy at the time of infection. Results Among 2,934 cases, 85 (2.9%) patients developed IPP infection at a median of 40 (22-78) days after IPP implantation. Infections occurred after primary IPP surgery in 59 (69%), revision in 25 (29%), and after infection salvaged with IPP in 1 (1%). Infections were managed with device explant in 32 (38%), malleable salvage in 43 (51%), and IPP salvage in 10 (12%). A significantly higher proportion of non-White patients underwent salvage (either with malleable or IPP) compared to White patients (p=0.01). Multinomial regression showed no association between patient and perioperative characteristics and infection management (p>0.05). Conclusions In this multi-institutional cohort of experienced implanters, infections were most commonly managed with malleable salvage. Patient and perioperative factors did not predict management approach, suggesting that the decision between explanation and salvage is primarily driven by individual surgeon preference. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Boston scientific

Abstract Introduction 0.05% Chlorhexidine Gluconate (CHG) has gained popularity as an irrigant and dip for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery. Prior in vitro data is conflicting on the impact of CHG use with hydrophilic coated devices. Objective We sought to identify possible associations between CHG use and hydrophilic IPP infection rate. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2,933 patients undergoing IPP implantation across 14 referral centers. Data collection spanned from January 1, 2017 to March 1, 2024. Each surgeon contributed patients who underwent IPP implantation with CHG used as an irrigant and/or dip as well as an equal number of consecutive control patients without CHG use. The primary outcome was IPP explant for postoperative infection. Univariable analysis was used to compare patient demographics, and logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with infection. Results Hydrophilic devices were implanted in 2,150 patients. Median follow-up for non-CHG patients was 13 months (IQR 18) and four months (IQR 9) for CHG patients. The incidence of infection with intraoperative CHG use was significantly higher compared to those without CHG use (4.6%, 46/1,001 vs. 2.1%, 24/1,148, p<0.001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, intraoperative CHG use was associated with infection (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.24-3.47, p=0.01). Additional variables associated with infection included immunosuppression, prior IPP infection, prior priapism, and revision surgery (p<0.01, Table). On subgroup analyses, the increased infection risk of CHG was most clear when CHG was used as both irrigation and dip (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19-3.46, p=0.01) and when CHG was used during revision surgery (OR 3.36, 95% CI 1.15-9.82, p=0.03). Conclusions In a large multi-institutional cohort, intraoperative CHG use was associated with an elevated incidence of hydrophilic IPP infection. Providers may take these findings into consideration when performing IPP surgery with hydrophilic devices, especially during revision surgery. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast Corporation and Boston Scientific