Search

Introduction Penile prosthesis infections remain challenging despite advancements in surgical technique, device improvements, and adoption of antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines. Aim To investigate penile prosthesis infection microbiology to consider which changes in practice could decrease infection rates, to evaluate current antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines, and to develop a proposed algorithm for penile prosthesis infections. Methods This retrospective institutional review board–exempt multi-institutional study from 25 centers reviewed intraoperative cultures obtained at explantation or Mulcahy salvage of infected three-piece inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs). Antibiotic usage was recorded at implantation, admission for infection, and explantation or salvage surgery. Cultures were obtained from purulent material in the implant space and from the biofilm on the device. Main Outcome Measures Intraoperative culture data from infected IPPs. Results Two hundred twenty-seven intraoperative cultures (2002–2016) were obtained at salvage or explantation. No culture growth occurred in 33% of cases and gram-positive and gram-negative organisms were found in 73% and 39% of positive cultures, respectively. Candida species (11.1%), anaerobes (10.5%) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (9.2%) constituted nearly one third of 153 positive cultures. Multi-organism infections occurred in 25% of positive cultures. Antibiotic regimens at initial implantation were generally consistent with American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. However, the micro-organisms identified in this study were covered by these guidelines in only 62% to 86% of cases. Antibiotic selection at admissions for infection and salvage or explantation varied widely compared with those at IPP implantation. Conclusion This study documents a high incidence of anaerobic, Candida, and methicillin-resistant S aureus infections. In addition, approximately one third of infected penile prosthesis cases had negative cultures. Micro-organisms identified in this study were not covered by the AUA and EAU antibiotic guidelines in at least 14% to 38% of cases. These findings suggest broadening antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines and creating a management algorithm for IPP infections might lower infection rates and improve salvage success.

For several decades any diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) has been considered an absolute contraindication to the use of testosterone (T) therapy in men. Yet this prohibition against T therapy has undergone recent re-examination with refinement of our understanding of the biology of androgens and PCa, and increased appreciation of the benefits of T therapy. A reassuringly low rate of negative outcomes has been reported with T therapy after radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation treatments, and in men on active surveillance. Although the number of these published reports are few and the total number of treated men is low, these experiences do provide a basis for consideration of T therapy in selected men with PCa. For clinicians considering offering this treatment, we recommend first selecting patients with low grade cancers and undetectable prostate-specific antigen following RP. Further research is required to define the safety of T therapy in men with PCa. However, many patients symptomatic from T deficiency are willing to accept the potential risk of PCa progression or recurrence in return for the opportunity to live a fuller and happier life with T therapy.

This report presents our experience with T therapy in a cohort of T-deficient men on active surveillance (AS) for Gleason 3 + 3 and Gleason 3 + 4 prostate cancer (PCa). A retrospective chart review identified 28 men with T deficiency who underwent T therapy (T group) for at least 6 months while on AS for PCa. A comparison group of 96 men on AS for PCa with untreated T deficiency (no-T group) was identified at the same institution. The AS protocol followed a modified Epstein criteria and allowed inclusion of men with a single core of low-volume Gleason 3 + 4 PCa. Mean age was 59.5 and 61.3 years, and mean follow-up was 38.9 and 42.4 months for the T and no-T groups, respectively. Of all 28 men in the T group, 3 (10.7%) men developed an increase in Gleason score while on AS. Of 22 men in the T group with Gleason 3 + 3 disease, 7 (31.8%) men developed biopsy progression including 3 men (13.6%) who developed Gleason 3 + 4 PCa. Of 6 men with Gleason 3 + 4 disease at baseline, 2 (33.3%) men developed an increase in tumor volume, and none developed upgrading beyond Gleason 3 + 4. All 96 men in the no-T group had Gleason 3 + 3 disease at baseline and, 43 (44.7%) developed biopsy progression, including 9 men (9.38%) with upgrading to Gleason 7 (3 + 4). Biopsy progression rates were similar for both groups and historical controls. Biopsy progression in men on AS appears unaffected by T therapy over 3 years. Prospective placebo-controlled trials of T therapy in T-deficient men on AS should be considered given the symptomatic benefits experienced by treated men.