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.

Repair of penile prosthesis-induced impending erosion using xenograft during simultaneous inflatable penile prosthesis replacement.

BACKGROUND: Penile prosthesis (PP)-induced impending erosion is a rare complication that has not been well characterized. AIM: This study evaluates the role of prosthesis sizing and of the safety of xenograft windsock repair (AlloDerm, Tutoplast, ArthroFLEX) of impending erosion. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of xenograft use during inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) replacement. Patient demographics, prior PP characteristics, and xenograft-augmented IPP characteristics were obtained. Paired-samples t tests were used to compare the PP cylinder size, rear tip extender size, and calculated PP length between the most recent prior PP and the xenograft-augmented IPP. Complications and follow-up data were obtained. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was comparing the corporal body and device measurements between the PP presenting with impending erosion and the implanted xenograft-augmented IPP. The secondary outcome was evaluating the incidence of subsequent explantation. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients underwent xenograft repair with simultaneous IPP replacement from 2012 to 2022. The median number of prior PP was 1 (interquartile range, 1-2.75). The median time between the most recent prior PP and xenograft-augmented IPP placement was 21 (interquartile range, 14-79) months. The prior PP was significantly longer at the time of explantation compared with the measured corporal body length in both the left (21.4 cm vs 20.1 cm; P < .01) and right (21.4 cm vs 20.1 cm; P < .01) sides. However, there was no significant difference in length between the xenograft-augmented IPP length at the time of implantation and measured corporal body length in both the left (20.1 cm vs 20.0 cm; P = .67) and right (20.2 cm vs 20.1 cm; P = .56) sides. A total of 16 (66.7%) cases required bilateral xenograft corporal body use. Only 1 (4.2%) patient had an IPP infection requiring explantation within 90 days of xenograft-augmented IPP placement. A total of 2 (8.3%) patients had device malfunction and 1 (4.2%) patient had impending erosion recurrence requiring removal/replacement of their initial xenograft-augmented IPP in a median time of 56 months from placement. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: PP oversizing may increase risk of PP-induced impending erosion, which is a delayed process. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This is the largest retrospective study of xenograft use during IPP replacement for impending erosion but does not have a control cohort. This study is limited by its retrospective nature, limited follow-up, and absence of a treatment comparison. CONCLUSION: PP-induced impending erosion may be due to PP oversizing but can be successfully repaired with xenograft windsock during simultaneous IPP replacement.

Iatrogenic injuries to reservoirs of inflatable penile prosthesis during urologic surgery: a scoping review and case report.

INTRODUCTION: First-line treatment options for patients with erectile dysfunction whose medical management has failed include the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). Many patients with an IPP require subsequent urologic surgery, during which the reservoir of the IPP can be injured. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to present a summary of current literature related to iatrogenic injuries to the IPP sustained during urologic surgery. METHODS: Two reviewers independently performed a systematic search on PubMed using standardized search terms to identify pertinent articles. After preliminary review, relevant studies were analyzed to identify the presence of perioperative complications resulting in IPP reservoir injury. Results were categorized by surgical procedures. RESULTS: Among 13 articles included, all were based on urologic surgery. Four studies identified IPP reservoir injury as a result of surgical injury. Of these, injuries occurred during radical prostatectomy (n = 3) and prostatic urethral lift surgery (UroLift, n = 1). Most radical prostatectomy studies without IPP reservoir injuries also described intentional surgical techniques that were employed to prevent reservoir damage, including modulation of reservoir inflation-deflation (n = 3), temporary reservoir repositioning (n = 1), or reservoir capsule dissection to improve visualization (n = 1). Findings from an additional novel case report on IPP injury during a UroLift procedure are presented in this review. CONCLUSION: Approximately one-third of studies identified intraoperative IPP reservoir injury as a significant complication of urologic surgery, particularly during radical prostatectomy. Novel case report findings also contribute the only other case of IPP reservoir damage sustained from delivery of UroLift implants. Findings are used to create a standardized surgical checklist that guides perioperative planning measures prior to pursuing surgery in adjacent spaces.

Efficacy and safety of malleable penile prosthesis compared to inflatable penile prosthesis in erectile dysfunction patients.

INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction can cause self-withdrawal and decreased quality of life. Patients who do not respond to pharmacological therapy and other conservative treatments are urged to undergo penile prosthesis implantation. Malleable penile prosthesis was the first prosthesis developed, but then inflatable penile prosthesis was developed to give a more natural erection. There is no meta-analysis comparing inflatable and malleable penile prostheses in terms of safety and efficacy. This study is conducted to evaluate patient and partner satisfaction, ease of use, mechanical failure, and infection rate in patients who underwent penile prosthesis implantation. METHOD: This meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocols. Five eligible studies were included from Pubmed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and SemanticScholar databases. RESULT: In this study, patient and partner satisfaction are significantly better (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.66-6.93, p = 0.0008) (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.75-3.08, p < 0.00001). Mechanical failure is also significantly higher in inflatable penile prostheses (OR 5.60, 95% CI 2.02-15.53, p = 0.0009). There is no significant difference in terms of ease of use and infection rate in inflatable or malleable penile prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: This study concluded that inflatable penile prosthesis is better in terms of patient and partner satisfaction, but mechanical failures occur more frequently in this type of prosthesis.

Cirurgia sem perdas das próteses penianas / Zero loss surgery of penile prosthesis

Analisar cinquenta e três pacientes com impotência sexual, tratados cirurgicamente com o implante de prótese peniana. Método e Casuística: estudo retrospectivo da experiência pessoal com o implante de prótese peniana. Vinte e oito pacientes tiveram como etiologia uma disfunção vascular peniana; 17, diabetes mellitus; quatro, pós-prostatectomia radical retropúbica em decorrência de câncer de próstata; dois, doença de peyronie, um paraplégico e outro devido a câncer de próstata com bloqueio androgênico. Em 16 pacientes, o implante foi realizado simultaneamente com outras operações. Foi seguido um protocolo rigoroso com 14 medidas antissépticas preventivas e antibiótico prevenção adequada, tendo como objetivo impedir infecção pós-operatória e consequente perda do implante peniano. A incisão foi penoescrotal, com os pacientes internando-se no dia da operação e com alta hospitalar na manhã do segundo dia de pós-operatório. Resultados: Não houve perda de nenhum implante e as complicações ocorridas não comprometeram o pós-operatório nem o resultado estético e funcional. O grau de satisfação obtido pelos pacientes foi de 96,2%. Conclusão: As medidas adotadas são de grande eficácia, não havendo perda do implante e ótimo resultado funcional e estético.

Analysis of 53 sexually impotent patients, surgically treated with penile prosthesis implantation. Material and Methods: Retrospective review of a personal experience with prosthesis implantation. The etiologies of the impotence were: penile vascular dysfunction (28 cases), diabetes mellitus (17 cases); retropubic radical prostatectomy as treatment of prostatic cancer (4 cases), Peyronie disease (2 cases), paraplegia and androgen suppression as treatment of prostatic cancer one case, each). In 16 patients implantation was performed simultaneously with other surgeries. A rigorous protocol was followed with 14 preventive antiseptic measures including adequate antibiotic in order to prevent postoperatory infection and consequent loss of penile implant. Results: There was no implant loss and complications did not compromise postoperative functional and aesthetic results. The satisfaction degree was 96.2%. Conclusions: It can be concluded that the adopted measures are very effective, with no implant loss and with excellent functional and aesthetic results.

Análise retrospectiva do implante de prótese peniana em diabéticos / Retrospective analysis of the penile prosthesis implant in diabetic patients

Foram analisados onze pacientes diabéticos do Instituto Estadual de Diabetes e Endocrinologia Luiz Capriglinone submetidos a prótese peniana por disfunção erétil, com o objetivo de avaliar as condições pré-implante e a segurança do procedimento. A indicação se baseou na resposta incompleta ou negativa ao teste de ereção com prostaglandina ou na rejeição pelo paciente ao uso de outros métodos para tratamento da disfunção. Todos os pacientes demonstraram satisfação com os resultados da cirurgia e apenas um apresentou complicações pós-operatória, decorrente de falha mecânica conseqüente a prótese defeituosa. Concluímos que o implante de prótese peniana pode ser considerado uma modalidade de tratamento segura, especialmente para a população diabética em situação sócio-econômica desfavorecida, uma vez que elimina a necessidade de tratamento farmacológicos de longa duração e o período pós-operatório cursa com raras complicações.

Dupla extrusão uretral assincrônica de prótese peniana semi-rígida: relato de caso e revisão da literatura / Double asynchronic urethral extrusion of a semirigid penile prosthesis: a case report and review

Relatamos o caso de um paciente de 61 anos com retenção urinária e portador de prótese peniana semi-rígida há 4 anos. Ao exame físico, uma haste de prótese protuía-se pelo meato uretral. O paciente tinha uma história de extrusão de outra haste da prótese há 2 anos. Essa rara complicação é pouco citada na literatura, não sendo encontrada descrição de dupla extrusão. Descrevemos o caso e revisamos a literatura