Infection Retardant Coated Inflatable Penile Prostheses Decrease the Incidence of Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Purpose:
This systematic review was done to compare the effectiveness of infection retardant coated inflatable penile prostheses vs noncoated devices.
Materials and Methods:
We systematically reviewed PubMed® and Galileo® to identify all relevant case studies. The postoperative infection incidence rate was compared for coated and noncoated inflatable penile prostheses to determine whether coating the implant affects the rate of surgical implant infection.
Results:
Included in analysis were 14 clinical case studies in a total of 9,910 patients with a first time implant, including 5,214 inflatable penile prostheses without an infection retardant coating and 4,696 coated inflatable penile prostheses impregnated with minocycline/rifampin (3,158), rifampin/gentamycin immersion (181), vancomycin/gentamycin immersion (181) and a hydrophilic coating only (1,176). For noncoated vs coated prostheses the infection rate was 2.32% vs 0.89% (p <0.01), including 0.63%, 0.55%, 4.42% and 1.11% for minocycline/rifampin, rifampin/gentamycin immersion, vancomycin/gentamycin immersion and hydrophilic coatings, respectively.
Conclusions:
This analysis documents a significant advantage of using coated compared to noncoated inflatable penile prostheses to prevent postoperative device infection. Infection retardant coatings that allow antibiotics to elute off the device components decrease the incidence of device infection by approximately 50%. Future studies must address novel techniques, such as preventing bacterial adhesion, to further decrease infectious etiologies.
References
- 1 :
Evaluation and nonsurgical management of erectile dysfunction and priapism . In: . Philadelphia: Saunders2007: 1620. chap 46. Google Scholar - 2 : Erectile dysfunction. Clin Evid (Online)June 29, 2011; 2011: 1803. Google Scholar
- 3 : Guidelines on Male Sexual Dysfunction: Erectile Dysfunction and Premature Ejaculation. Arnhem, The Netherlands: European Association of Urology2009. update March 2009. Google Scholar
- 4 : Implants, mechanical devices, and vascular surgery for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med2010; 7: 501. Google Scholar
- 5 : The penile implant for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med2004; 1: 98. Google Scholar
- 6 : Management of erectile impotence: Use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology1973; 2: 80. Google Scholar
- 7 : Penile prosthesis infection: progress in prevention and treatment. Curr Urol Rep2010; 11: 400. Google Scholar
- 8 : Biofilm and penile prosthesis infections in the era of coated implants: a review. J Sex Med2012; 9: 44. Google Scholar
- 9 : Contemporary revision penile prosthesis surgery is not associated with a high risk of implant colonization or infection: a single-surgeon series. J Sex Med2011; 8: 1540. Google Scholar
- 10 : What drives bacteria to produce a biofilm?. FEMS Microbiol Lett2004; 236: 163. Google Scholar
- 11 : Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol2004; 171: 1611. Link, Google Scholar
- 12 : Antibiotic coating reduces penile prosthesis infection. J Sex Med2005; 2: 565. Google Scholar
- 13 Eid JF, Wilson SK, Cleves M et al: “No touch” technique appears to decrease risk of infection in inflatable penile prosthesis implantation. Unpublished data. Google Scholar
- 14 : Does surgical approach affect the incidence of inflatable penile prosthesis infection?. Urology1998; 52: 291. Google Scholar
- 15 : Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol1996; 156: 402. Link, Google Scholar
- 16 : Periprosthetic infections. J Urol1987; 138: 68. Link, Google Scholar
- 17 : Penile prosthesis infections. Int J Impot Res2001; 13: 326. Google Scholar
- 18 : Risk factors associated with penile prosthesis infections. J Urol1992; 147: 383. Abstract, Google Scholar
- 19 : Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol1995; 153: 659. Link, Google Scholar
- 20 : Quantifying risk of penile prosthesis infection with elevated glycosylated hemoglobin. J Urol1998; 159: 1537. Link, Google Scholar
- 21 : The hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis: 1-year experience. J Sex Med2004; 1: 221. Google Scholar
- 22 : Risk of infection with an antibiotic coated penile prosthesis at device replacement for mechanical failure. J Urol2006; 176: 2471. Link, Google Scholar
- 23 : Infection rates of rifampin/gentamicin-coated Titan Coloplast penile implants: Comparison with Inhibizone-impregnated AMS penile implants. J Sex Med2011; 8: 315. Google Scholar
- 24 : Coloplast titan inflatable penile prosthesis with one-touch release pump: review of 100 cases and comparison with genesis pump. J Sex Med2011; 8: 310. Google Scholar
- 25 : Infection reduction using antibiotic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology2007; 70: 337. Google Scholar
- 26 : Long-term infection outcomes after original antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis implants: up to 7.7 years of followup. J Urol2011; 185: 614. Link, Google Scholar
- 27 : Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. Int Urol Nephrol2003; 35: 209. Google Scholar
Department of Urology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Institute for Urologic Excellence (SKW), Indio, California
