Pyrgidis, Nikolaos

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 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.