Search

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infection, time of year, climate, temperature and humidity. This is a retrospective IRB-approved analysis of 211 patients at 25 institutions who underwent salvage procedure or device explant between 2001 and 2016. Patient data were compiled after an extensive review of all aspects of their electronic medical records. Climate data were compiled from monthly norms based on location, as well as specific data regarding temperature, dew point, and humidity from dates of surgery. Rigorous statistical analysis was performed. We found that penile prosthesis infections occurred more commonly in June (n = 24) and less frequently during the winter months (n = 39), with the lowest number occurring in March (n = 11). One-hundred thirty-nine infections occurred at average daily temperatures greater than 55 °F, compared to 72 infections at less than 55 °F. The incidence rate ratio for this trend was 1.93, with a p-value of

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is a well-established treatment for medically refractory erectile dysfunction. Infection is the most dreaded complication and the major...

Introduction and Objectives Implantation of a penile prosthesis in a patient with significant corporal fibrosis can pose a significant challenge to the surgeon, necessitating the knowledge of specific techniques used to dilate and close aggressively scarred corpora. The objective of our instructional video is to discuss 2 techniques used to approach corporal fibrosis: proper and safe use of cavernotomes for dilation and use of narrower prostheses. Methods In this video, we present a 53-year-old man with a history of priapism 3 years ago that lasted 4 days in the setting of trazodone use. He was managed with corporal irrigation and subsequently developed severe erectile dysfunction. Notably, the patient had a history of sickle cell anemia, and on physical examination was noted to have densely fibrotic corpora. After extensive counseling regarding options, he chose a penile implant. The surgical was planned using the “no touch technique.” After the corporotomies were made, we began dilating the corpora. Hegar dilators and Dilamezinsert were attempted at first but met significant resistance. We switched to cutting cavernotomes and were able to dilate up to 11-Fr distally and up to 13-Fr proximally. The proper use of cavernotomes is highlighted in our video, with care being taken to aim the cutting edge of the cavernotome laterally away from the urethra. We also used the narrowest inflatable prosthesis available to us (Coloplast Titan narrow-base) and describe the narrower devices available in inflatable and malleable forms as an option for less-than-ideally dilated corpora. The pump and reservoir placement was completed uneventfully. Results The patient was admitted overnight for observation and check of a complete blood count given his history of sickle cell anemia. He was able to be discharged after 23 hours of observation. The patient presented to the clinic 4 weeks later for pump activation. He was able to achieve good rigidity and had a penile length adequate for penetration after maximal activation. Conclusion This video discusses the approach to penile prosthesis placement in patients with significant corporal fibrosis. It highlights the proper use of cutting cavernotomes and the availability of narrow-diameter prostheses, both malleable and inflatable.

We report a case of malfunction of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) after prostatic urethral lift (PUL) necessitating surgical intervention. A 70 year-old male underwent PUL for benign prostatic hyperplasia after IPP implant for organic erectile dysfunction. After PUL, the patient experienced IPP malfunction where he underwent subsequent IPP removal and replacement. A pinhole defect was noted in the reservoir upon removal attributable to PUL. Performing PUL before IPP implantation should be considered in light of potential iatrogenic PUL needle deployment injury.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infection, time of year, climate, temperature and humidity. This is a retrospective IRB-approved analysis of 211 patients at 25 institutions who underwent salvage procedure or device explant between 2001 and 2016. Patient data were compiled after an extensive review of all aspects of their electronic medical records. Climate data were compiled from monthly norms based on location, as well as specific data regarding temperature, dew point, and humidity from dates of surgery. Rigorous statistical analysis was performed. We found that penile prosthesis infections occurred more commonly in June (n = 24) and less frequently during the winter months (n = 39), with the lowest number occurring in March (n = 11). One-hundred thirty-nine infections occurred at average daily temperatures greater than 55 °F, compared to 72 infections at less than 55 °F. The incidence rate ratio for this trend was 1.93, with a p-value of0.001. Humidity results were similar, and fungal infections correlate with daily humidity. Infected implants performed in the fall and summer were over 3 and 2.3 times, respectively, more likely to grow Gram-positive bacteria compared to implants performed in spring (p = 0.004; p = 0.039). This was consistent across geographic location, including in the Southern hemisphere. We found trends between climate factors and IPP infection like those seen and proven in other surgical literature. To our knowledge these data represent the first exploration of the relationship between temperature and infection in prosthetic urology.

Introduction Over 25% of the more than 725,000 cases of nosocomial infection in the United States are related to an implantable device. Despite the standard typical strategies available, infection rates for breast implants, cerebrospinal shunts, and penile implants remain unacceptably high. This paper will review use of a “no-touch” technique in varied surgical procedures from orthopedic fracture repair, cerebrospinal fluid shunt placement, and breast reconstruction/augmentation to penile prosthesis implantation. Aim One of our aims was to investigate whether the “no-touch” concept was unique to the field of penile implants and if similar results were obtained in other subspecialties. The other was to examine whether the low infection rate initially obtained with the “no-touch” technique was maintained for a larger number of penile implant procedures. Methods The literature was reviewed for the use of the “no-touch” technique in procedures as varied as orthopedic fracture repair, cerebrospinal fluid shunt placement, breast reconstruction/augmentation, and penile prosthesis implantation. In addition, a single surgeon's experience with 3342 penile implant surgeries with and without the use of the “no-touch” technique was reviewed. Main outcome measure Penile implant infection rate was examined for 3342 consecutive cases between January 2002 and December 2014. Infection of standard technique was compared with rate of infection with antibiotic impregnated devices and starting in 2006 with the addition of the “no-touch” enhancement. Results Literature review revealed that the “no-touch” technique decreased postoperative cerebral shunt infection from 9.1% to 2.9%. Breast implant reconstruction surgical site infection decreased from 19% to none with the “no-touch” technique. Penile implant infection rate fell from 5.3% in 2002 to 1.99% with the use of antibiotic impregnated devices and to 0.44% with the addition of the “no-touch” technique. Conclusion Use of a “no-touch” technique involving a mechanical barrier makes a difference in preventing infection of an implantable device.

Since its introduction in 1996 Mulcahy salvage has significantly improved outcomes for the removal and replacement of infected inflatable penile prostheses. Long-term followup data of Mulcahy salvage show an infection-free rate of 82%. A multicenter retrospective analysis of the malleable implant salvage technique was conducted to assess infection outcomes and the feasibility of conversion from malleable device back to inflatable penile prosthesis.This is a retrospective, institutional review board exempt, multi-institution study of 58 patients who underwent Mulcahy salvage with inflatable penile prosthesis removal and replacement with malleable prosthesis. Patient operative notes and charts were extensively reviewed to compile study data.Between 2002 and 2014 a total of 58 patients underwent infected inflatable penile prosthesis removal and replacement with a malleable prosthesis via Mulcahy salvage. Of these patients 54 (93%) have remained infection-free postoperatively. Average patient age was 56.4 years and average operative time was 148 minutes. Postoperative followup (as of May 2015) ranged from 1 month to 84 months. Of the 54 patients 37 retained the malleable prosthesis and 17 (31%) subsequently underwent replacement with an inflatable penile prosthesis. This occurred on average 6.7 months after Mulcahy salvage. Four patients had persistent infection after Mulcahy salvage with the malleable prosthesis and underwent explantation.This retrospective analysis of Mulcahy salvage procedure and replacement of inflatable penile prosthesis with malleable prosthesis shows a high infection-free rate. Additionally, 17 of the 54 patients who remained infection-free were able to successfully undergo subsequent removal of the malleable prosthesis and replacement with an inflatable penile prosthesis. Further prospective studies are needed to compare salvage with malleable vs inflatable penile prosthesis.