RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Prótese de Pênis , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prótese de Pênis/efeitos adversos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese/epidemiologia , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese/etiologia , Idoso , Estações do Ano , Temperatura , Implante Peniano/efeitos adversos , Clima , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Disfunção Erétil , Implante Peniano , Prótese de Pênis , Masculino , Humanos , Antibioticoprofilaxia , Vancomicina/uso terapêutico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estudos Prospectivos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/cirurgia , Prótese de Pênis/efeitos adversos , Gentamicinas/uso terapêutico , Disfunção Erétil/cirurgia , Estudos Multicêntricos como AssuntoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate predictors of implant length for men undergoing primary IPP placement. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was performed for men undergoing primary IPP placement at 16 high-volume surgical centers. Patient demographics, comorbidities, operative approach, and implanted cylinder and rear-tip extender length were recorded. Associations between potential preoperative and intraoperative predictors of total device length were tested using non-parametric correlation and Kruskal-Wallis tests, followed by multiple regression. RESULTS: Of 3951 men undergoing primary IPP placement from July 2016 to July 2021, the median implant length was 20 cm (IQR: 19-22). Shorter implant length was associated with increasing age in years (ß = -0.01, P = .009), Asian ethnicity (ß = -2.34, P = .008), history of radical prostatectomy (ß = -0.35, P = .001), and use of an infrapubic surgical approach (ß = -1.02, P <.001). Black or African American ethnicity was associated with the implantation of longer devices (ß = 0.35, P <.001). No significant associations were recorded with BMI, history of intracavernosal injections, diabetes mellitus, tobacco use, radiation therapy, Peyronie's disease, priapism, or cavernosal dilation technique. CONCLUSION: The length of an implanted penile prosthesis was found to be associated with preoperative and intraoperative factors including history of radical prostatectomy and operative approach. The knowledge of these associations may assist in the preoperative counseling of patients receiving IPP and help create accurate postoperative expectations.