Risk of Infection With an Antibiotic Coated Penile Prosthesis at Device Replacement for Mechanical Failure
Abstract
Purpose:
The inflatable penile prosthesis is well established as an effective treatment for select patients with organic erectile dysfunction. The risk of prosthetic infection at primary implantation is approximately 2%. However, for revision or replacement procedures the risk of infection has been reported to be as high as 13.3%. To minimize the overall risk of prosthetic infection an antibiotic coated inflatable penile prosthesis (InhibiZone™) has been developed. To assess the impact on infection rates we reviewed our experience with the use of this device at prosthesis replacement for mechanical failure.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients undergoing inflatable penile prosthesis replacement for mechanical failure with an antibiotic coated prosthesis between May 2001 and November 2004. Salvage procedures for clinically infected prostheses were excluded from analysis. Chart review was performed with examination of operative notes, all postoperative contacts and microbiological data.
Results:
A total of 55 patients underwent replacement of an inflatable penile prosthesis for mechanical failure using a device coated with rifampin and minocycline HCL (InhibiZone™). In all patients before reimplantation component spaces were irrigated in standard fashion. With a median followup of 32 months (range 12 to 54) postoperative device infection requiring explantation developed in 1 patient (1.8%). Intraoperative cultures from the pump site grew coagulase negative staphylococcus.
Conclusions:
Our data suggest that an antibiotic coated inflatable penile prosthesis may lead to decreased infection rates in patients undergoing penile prosthesis replacement for mechanical failure.
References
- 1 : Current status of penile prosthesis implantation. Cur Urol Rep2000; 1: 291. Google Scholar
- 2 : Penile prosthesis infections. Int J Impot Res2001; 13: 326. Google Scholar
- 3 : Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol1996; 156: 402. Link, Google Scholar
- 4 : Diagnosis, treatment and prevention of penile prosthesis infection. Int J Impot Res2003; 15: S139. Google Scholar
- 5 : Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol1995; 153: 659. Link, Google Scholar
- 6 : Cultures from genitourinary prostheses at reoperation: questioning the role of staphylococcus epidermidis in periprosthetic infection. J Urol1995; 154: 387. Link, Google Scholar
- 7 : Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol2004; 171: 1611. Link, Google Scholar
- 8 : Mechanical failure of the American Medical Systems Ultrex inflatable penile prosthesis: before and after 1993 structural modification. J Urol2002; 167: 2502. Link, Google Scholar
- 9 : Efficacy of antimicrobial-impregnated silicone sections from penile implants in preventing device colonization in an animal model. Urology2002; 59: 303. Google Scholar
- 10 : Antimicrobial activity of antibiotic-soaked, Resist-coated Bioflex. Int J Impot Res2003; 15: 18. Google Scholar
- 11 : Hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis: one-year experience. J Urol2004; 171: 237. abstract 896. Link, Google Scholar
- 12 : Prevention of infection in revision of penile prostheses by using antibiotic coated prosthesis and Mulcahy salvage protocol. J Urol2003; 169: 325. abstract 1264. Google Scholar
- 13 : Revision washout decreases penile prosthesis infection in revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol2005; 173: 89. Link, Google Scholar
- 14 : Late hematogenous infection to penile prosthesis. J Urol1988; 139: 112. Google Scholar
- 15 : Rescue procedure: an alternative to complete removal for treatment of infected penile prosthesis. J Urol1987; 137: 202A. abstract 396. Link, Google Scholar
