Search

Abstract Background Infection after the penile prosthesis can be devastating to both the patient and surgeon with various complications and consequences. After introduction of antibiotic-coated implants, the rate of infection has dramatically decreased, but still we see uncommon organisms causing infection. We present a first case report of penile prosthesis infection by brucellosis due to raw milk ingestion. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of brucellosis penile prosthesis infection. Case presentation We present a first case report of penile prosthesis infection by brucellosis due to raw milk ingestion. A 75-year-old, diabetic male patient presented with penile prosthesis infection 5 months post-penile exchange surgery due to mechanical malfunctioning of 2-piece penile prosthesis which was inserted 11 years ago. The initial treatment with broad spectrum antibiotics did not subside the infection. After diagnosis of brucellosis, the antibiotic was changed to anti-brucellosis (Rifampicin + Tetracycline). The patient improved dramatically and was discharged home with smooth follow-up course. Conclusion Brucellosis can cause infection of penile prosthesis and can be treated with anti-brucellosis antibiotics without necessitating surgical intervention and removal of prosthesis.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors identified an error in an author’s name.

Erectile dysfunction (ED) poses a significant challenge in clinical practice, necessitating accurate diagnostic strategies to distinguish between organic and psychogenic causes. Current guidelines advocate a comprehensive approach involving medical history, physical examination and blood tests, with second-level analyses like the intracavernous injection of vasoactive drugs (ICI test) and penile duplex ultrasound (PDU) reserved for specific cases. A survey involving 24 urologists experienced in ED was conducted to assess their opinions on the appropriateness of the ICI test and PDU in six clinical scenarios. Results were analyzed using pie charts, revealing varied preferences among experts. The responses indicated diverse viewpoints, with preferences for the ICI test or PDU depending on the patient’s age, comorbidities, response to phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) and concomitant Peyronie’s disease. In some cases, a significant proportion of experts opted for neither test. The study highlights the lack of consensus among experts regarding the routine use of PDU in ED management. Despite its diagnostic capabilities, the clinical utility of PDU remains unclear, and its role may be more justified in certain populations with anatomical abnormalities or specific conditions. The need for rigorous research to determine the impact of PDU on ED management decision-making is emphasized.