Long-Term Infection Outcomes After Original Antibiotic Impregnated Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implants: Up to 7.7 Years of Followup
Abstract
Purpose:
Although some studies suggest that most infections associated with inflatable penile prosthesis implantation develop within year 1 after surgery, device related infections have been reported 5 years after implantation or later and the infection risk with time is not well characterized. We previously reported a statistically significantly lower infection rate for original inflatable penile prostheses impregnated with antibiotic treatment with minocycline and rifampin vs nonimpregnated inflatable penile prostheses at 1-year followup. Long-term data are now available on infection revision after initial implantation of antibiotic impregnated vs nonimpregnated prostheses.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed patient information forms voluntarily filed with the manufacturer after the initial implantation of more than 39,000 inflatable penile prostheses to compare the revision rate due to infection for antibiotic impregnated vs nonimpregnated implants between May 1, 2001 and December 31, 2008. Life table analysis was used to evaluate device survival from revision surgery.
Results:
On life table survival analysis initial revision events due to infection were significantly less common in the impregnated vs the nonimpregnated group (log rank p <0.0001). At up to 7.7 years of followup 1.1% of 35,737 vs 2.5% of 3,268 men with impregnated vs nonimpregnated implants underwent initial revision due to infection.
Conclusions:
To our knowledge this long-term outcome analysis provides the first substantial clinical evidence of a decrease in costly infection related revision using an antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis.
References
- 1 : Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N Engl J Med2004; 350: 1422. Google Scholar
- 2 : Penile prosthesis infections. Int J Impot Res2001; 13: 326. Google Scholar
- 3 : Infection reduction using antibiotic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology2007; 70: 337. Google Scholar
- 4 : Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol2004; 171: 1611. Link, Google Scholar
- 5 : Penile prosthetic surgery in neurologically impaired patients: long-term followup. J Urol2006; 175: 1041. Link, Google Scholar
- 6 : Revision washout decreases penile prosthesis infection in revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol2005; 173: 89. Link, Google Scholar
- 7 : Penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol2004; 172: 153. Link, Google Scholar
- 8 : Comparative assessment of antimicrobial activities of antibiotic-treated penile prostheses. Eur Urol2009; 56: 1039. 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 : Antibiotic coating reduces penile prosthesis infection. J Sex Med2005; 2: 565. Google Scholar
- 11 : Risk of infection with an antibiotic coated penile prosthesis at device replacement for mechanical failure. J Urol2006; 176: 2471. Link, Google Scholar
- 12 : Cost and time benefits of dual implantation of inflatable penile and artificial urinary sphincter prosthetics by single incision. Urology2005; 65: 852. Google Scholar
- 13 : Erectile implants in female-to-male transsexuals: our experience in 129 patients. Eur Urol2010; 57: 334. Google Scholar
- 14 : The hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis: 1-year experience. J Sex Med2004; 1: 221. Google Scholar
