Does climate impact inflatable penile prosthesis infection (IPP) risk? Assessment of temperature and dew point on IPP infections.

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.

AUA-recommended Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Primary Penile Implantation Results in a Higher, Not Lower, Risk for Postoperative Infection: A Multicenter Analysis.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to determine if the AUA-recommended prophylaxis (vancomycin + gentamicin alone) for primary inflatable penile prosthesis surgery is associated with a higher infection risk than nonstandard regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of patients undergoing primary inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. Patients were divided into those receiving vancomycin + gentamicin alone and those receiving any other regimen. A Cox proportional-hazards model was constructed adjusted for major predictors. A subgroup analysis to identify the appropriate dosage of gentamicin was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 4,161 patients underwent primary inflatable penile prosthesis placement (2,411 received vancomycin + gentamicin alone and 1,750 received other regimens). The infection rate was similar between groups, 1% vs 1.2% for standard vs nonstandard prophylaxis. In the multivariable analysis, vancomycin + gentamicin (HR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.4 to 5.4, P = .004) and diabetes (HR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.4, P = .04) were significantly associated with a higher risk of infection. Antifungals (HR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.19, P < .001) were associated with lower risk of infection. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rate between weight-based gentamicin compared to 80 mg gentamicin (HR: 2.9, 95% CI: 0.83 to 10, P = .1). CONCLUSIONS: Vancomycin + gentamicin alone for antibiotic prophylaxis for primary inflatable penile prosthesis surgery is associated with a higher infection risk than nonstandard antibiotic regimens while antifungal use is associated with lower infection risk. A critical review of the recommended antimicrobial prophylactic regimens is needed. Prospective research is needed to further elucidate best practices in inflatable penile prosthesis antimicrobial prophylaxis.