Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Local Treatment of Penile Prosthesis Infection as Alternative to Immediate Salvage Surgery

      case-report
      , MD, PhD , , MD, , MD, PhD, , MD, PhD
      Sexual Medicine
      Elsevier
      Erectile dysfunction, Infection, Penile implantation, Penile prosthesis

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Penile prosthesis (PP) is the established treatment for patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) who do not respond to phosphodiesterase inhibitors and intracavernosal injections. In general, these devices have been largely successful but there are not free of serious complication such as PP infection (PPI). PPI requires immediate surgical removal or salvage rescue of the PP.

          Aim

          In this report, we present two clinical cases with inflatable PP (IPP) treated locally with antibiotic and high pressure irrigation and then avoid the PP removal or salvage rescue.

          Methods

          We present two patients with PPI in our institution and literature review.

          Main Outcome Measures

          Resolution of the two cases.

          Results

          Patient A (A) was 44 years old and patient B (B) 51 years old presented PPI after three weeks (A) and eight weeks (B). Both patients were diabetic. Physical exploration revealed an open scrotal incision at its margin with a clear discharge. The rest of the incision and scrotum were clean and dry. They had not scrotum pain/tenderness or systemic/septic symptoms. The bacterial culture of the incisional drainage revealed a Staphylococcus aureus (A) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (B). In both cases, we performed an excision of the tissue around the pump with a high pressure pulsed irrigation (Interpulse; Stryker Corp, Kalamazoo, MI, USA). For the irrigation we used three different solutions that included povidone-iodine, antibiotics (gentamicin plus vancomicin), and hydrogen peroxyde. Finally, we performed a multilayered surgical closure with the use of aspirate drainage over 24 hours and intravenous antibiotics. The patients had a total resolution of its symptoms after 20 months (A) and 36 months (B), and the IPP worked properly.

          Conclusion

          This treatment could be an option for to perform specific patients with local IPP infection without systemic symptoms instead of surgical removal.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Long-term experience with salvage of infected penile implants.

          J Mulcahy (2000)
          The effectiveness of treating patients with an infected penile implant by removing the device, cleansing the wound with a series of antiseptic solutions and placing a new device at the same procedure was assessed. A total of 65 patients were included in the study. All foreign material was removed from the infected wound followed by copious wound irrigations with a protocol of 7 antibacterial solutions. A new prosthesis was inserted and the patient was placed on antibiotics. Followup ranged from 6 to 93 months. Recent status was determined in 85% of cases (55 of 65). Of the 55 patients 45 (82%) showed no sign of infection. In 5 patients recurrent infection was documented and in 5 others erosion of parts to the exterior possibly related to infection was noted. Salvage of an infected penile implant has been successful and is gaining in popularity among urologists to reduce morbidity associated with infection.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying risk of penile prosthesis infection with elevated glycosylated hemoglobin.

            Elevation of glycosylated hemoglobin above levels of 11.5 mg.% has been considered a contraindication to penile prosthesis implantation in diabetic patients. We determine the predictive value of glycosylated hemoglobin A1C in penile prosthesis infections in diabetic and nondiabetic patients to confirm or deny this prevalent opinion. We conducted a 2-year prospective study of 389 patients, including 114 diabetics, who underwent 3-piece penile prosthesis implantation. All patients had similar preoperative preparation without regard to diabetic status, control or glycosylated hemoglobin A1C level. Risk of infection was statistically analyzed for diabetics versus nondiabetics, glycosylated hemoglobin A1C values above and below 11.5 mg.%, insulin dependent versus oral medication diabetics, and fasting blood sugars above and below 180 mg.%. Prosthesis infections developed in 10 diabetics (8.7%) and 11 nondiabetics (4.0%). No increased infection rate was observed in diabetics with high fasting sugars or diabetics on insulin. There was no statistically significant increased infection risk with increased levels of glycosylated hemoglobin A1C among all patients or among only the diabetics. In fact, there was no meaningful difference in the median or mean level of glycosylated hemoglobin A1C in the infected and noninfected patients regardless of diabetes. Use of glycosylated hemoglobin A1C values to identify and exclude surgical candidates with increased risk of infections is not proved by this study. Elevation of fasting sugar or insulin dependence also does not increase risk of infection in diabetics undergoing prosthesis implantation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Revision washout decreases penile prosthesis infection in revision surgery: a multicenter study.

              Reoperation of penile implants carries a higher risk of infection (7% to 18%). Positive cultures and visible bacterial biofilm have been shown to be present on clinically uninfected inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) at revision. A salvage irrigation protocol has proved to rescue patients with a clinically infected IPP. During revision surgery for noninfectious reasons we investigated washing out the implant space at revision surgery and using an antibiotic coated replacement prosthesis to determine if it would decrease subsequent infection rates. At 3 institutions 183 patients with a penile prosthesis underwent revision surgery for noninfectious reasons between June 2001 and October 2003. Of these patients 140 had the entire implant removed and then underwent antiseptic solution lavage of the implant spaces (revision washout), followed by replacement with a 3 piece IPP. This revision washout is a modification of the original Mulcahy salvage procedure. In the remaining 43 patients the implant was removed but they did not undergo antiseptic irrigation before replacement with an antibiotic coated IPP. Patients were followed for 6 to 33 months, while observing for failure. Four of the 140 patients (2.86%) who underwent removal of the entire implant with irrigation of the implant spaces with antiseptic solutions and replacement with an IPP have had infection. In the remaining group 5 of the 43 patients (11.6%) who did not undergo antiseptic irrigation had infection. The difference was statistically significant at the 5% level (Fisher's exact test p = 0.034). Early results of combining complete implant removal and modified salvage protocol indicate a markedly decreased incidence of infection in patients with a penile prosthesis undergoing revision for noninfectious reasons.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Sex Med
                Sex Med
                Sexual Medicine
                Elsevier
                2050-1161
                30 July 2016
                December 2016
                30 July 2016
                : 4
                : 4
                : e255-e258
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Urology, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, València, Spain
                Author notes
                [] Corresponding Author: Saturnino Luján, MD, PhD, Department of Urology, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, 106, Avinguda de Fernando Abril Martorell, 46026 València, Spain. Phone +34 961 244 000Department of UrologyHospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe106, Avinguda de Fernando Abril Martorell46026 ValènciaSpain satlujan@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                S2050-1161(16)30044-7
                10.1016/j.esxm.2016.06.002
                5121535
                27484916
                d331e57b-b8d3-40e9-ab16-835164e78f69
                © 2016 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 17 April 2016
                : 5 June 2016
                Categories
                Case Report
                Basic Science

                erectile dysfunction,infection,penile implantation,penile prosthesis

                Comments

                Comment on this article