AUA-recommended Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Primary Penile Implantation Results in a Higher, Not Lower, Risk for Postoperative Infection: A Multicenter Analysis
Impact of Antimicrobial Dipping Solutions on Postoperative Infection Rates in Patients with Diabetes Undergoing Primary Insertion of a Coloplast Titan Inflatable Penile Prosthesis
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
105 Impact of Antimicrobial Dipping Solutions on Post-Operative Infection Rates in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Primary Insertion of a Coloplast Titan Inflatable Penile Prosthesis
106 Immediate Preoperative Blood Glucose and Hemoglobin A1c Levels are not Predictive of Post-Operative Infections in Diabetic Men Undergoing Penile Prosthesis Placement
028 Adherence to the AUA Penile Prosthesis Antibiotic Prophylaxis Guidelines in Diabetic Patients is Associated with Significantly Higher Risks of Device Infection
Andrianne Mini-Jupette Graft at the Time of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement for the Management of Post-Prostatectomy Climacturia and Minimal Urinary Incontinence
Abstract Background After radical prostatectomy (RP), erectile dysfunction, often necessitating the need for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) insertion, and urinary incontinence and climacturia can ensue. Aim To assess the efficacy and safety of the mini-jupette, a mesh used to approximate the medial aspects of the 2 corporotomies at the time of IPP insertion, for the management of climacturia and urine leakage in patients with minimal incontinence. Methods We conducted a pilot multicenter study of patients with post-RP erectile dysfunction and climacturia and/or mild urinary incontinence (≤2 pads/day [ppd]) undergoing IPP insertion with concomitant placement of a mini-jupette graft. Outcomes Pre- and postoperative erectile function, continence and climacturia, and overall surgical outcomes were assessed. Results 38 patients underwent the mini-jupette procedure. The mean age of the population was 65.3 years (SD = 7.7). 30 had post-RP climacturia and 32 patients had post-RP incontinence (mean = 1.3 ppd, SD = 0.8). 31 patients received Coloplast Titan, 4 received AMS 700 LGX, and 3 received AMS 700 CX IPPs. Mean corporotomy size was 2.9 cm (SD = 1.0). Mean graft measurements were 3.2 cm (SD = 0.9) for width, 3.3 cm (SD = 1.3) for length, and 11.0 cm2 (SD = 5.1) for surface area. At a mean follow-up of 5.1 months (SD = 6.9), there were 5 postoperative complications (13.2%) of which 4 required explantation. Climacturia and incontinence were subjectively improved in 92.8% and 85.7%, respectively. Mean ppd decreased by 1.3 postoperatively. Clinical Implications The Andrianne mini-jupette is a feasible adjunct to IPP placement that can be used for subsets of patients with post-RP climacturia and/or minimal incontinence. Strengths and Limitations Strengths of this study include the novel nature of this intervention, the multi-institutional nature of the study, and the promising results demonstrated. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the heterogeneity of the techniques and grafts used by different surgeons involved. Conclusion Longer follow-up and larger patient cohorts are needed to confirm the long-term safety and benefits of this intervention.