Abstract
Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the gold standard for medically refractory erectile dysfunction. Infectious complications remain a significant concern in IPP revision surgery. We sought to evaluate the impact of number of IPP surgeries on subsequent infection rates. A retrospective analysis was performed on all new patients (self or outside provider referred) presenting for consideration of IPP revision or salvage surgery between 2013 and 2015. Histories were reviewed including number of prior IPPs, reason for evaluation, and rate, number, and timing of prior IPP infections. No patients were operated on by the primary investigator prior to data acquisition. We identified 44 patients with at least one prior IPP presenting for consultation regarding IPP revision/salvage. There were 88 IPPs placed by 28 different surgeons. In patients with two or more devices, 55% had at least two different surgeons. The most common reason for presentation was malfunction (52%). The risk of specific device infection was strongly correlated and increased based on number of prior IPPs: 1st (6.8%; 3/44), 2nd (18.2%; 4/22), 3rd (33.3%; 4/12), 4th (50%; 4/8), and 5th (100%; 2/2) (R2 = 0.90, p = 0.01). Similarly, overall rates of infection positively correlated with number of prior IPP-related surgeries performed (R2 = 0.97, p < 0.01). The median time to development of infection after most recent IPP surgery was 2 months (IQR 1–3.3 months). Infection rates of revision/salvage IPP surgery increase with each subsequent IPP placement or following IPP-related surgeries. The majority of patients referred for penile implant surgery can expect to have experienced at least one infection by their 4th device. These data represent a change in paradigm on revision prosthetic surgery.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 8 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $32.38 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence. Use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology. 1973;2:80–2.
Trost LW, McCaslin R, Linder B, Hellstrom WJ. Long-term outcomes of penile prostheses for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013;10:353–66.
Lux M, Reyes-Vallejo L, Morgentaler A, Levine LA. Outcomes and satisfaction rates for the redesigned 2-piece penile prosthesis. J Urol. 2007;177:262–6.
Govier FE, Gibbons RP, Correa RJ, Pritchett TR, Kramer-Levien D. Mechanical reliability, surgical complications, and patient and partner satisfaction of the modern three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1998;52:282–6.
Serefoglu EC, Mandava SH, Gokce A, Chouhan JD, Wilson SK, Hellstrom WJ. Long-term revision rate due to infection in hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prostheses: 11-year follow-up. J Sex Med. 2012;9:2182–6.
Carson CC 3rd, Mulcahy JJ, Harsch MR. Long-term infection outcomes after original antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis implants: up to 7.7 years of follow-up. J Urol. 2011;185:614–8.
Pastuszak AW, Lentz AC, Farooq A, Jones L, Bella AJ. Technological improvements in three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis design over the past 40 years. J Sex Med. 2015;12(Suppl 7):415–21.
Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd, et al. Revision washout decreases penile prosthesis infection in revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2005;173:89–92.
Abouassaly R, Angermeier KW, Montague DK. Risk of infection with an antibiotic coated penile prosthesis at device replacement for mechanical failure. J Urol. 2006;176:2471–3.
Grewal S, Vetter J, Brandes SB, Strope SA. A population-based analysis of contemporary rates of reoperation for penile prosthesis procedures. Urology. 2014;84:112–6.
Caire AA, Boonjindasup A, Hellstrom WJ. Does a replacement or revision of an inflatable penile prosthesis lead to decreased patient satisfaction? Int J Impot Res. 2011;23:39–42.
Deuk Choi Y, Jin Choi Y, Hwan Kim J, Ki Choi H. Mechanical reliability of the AMS 700CXM inflatable penile prosthesis for the treatment of male erectile dysfunction. J Urol. 2001;165:822–4.
Kim DS, Yang KM, Chung HJ, Choi HM, Choi YD, Choi HK. AMS 700CX/CXM inflatable penile prosthesis has high mechanical reliability at long-term follow-up. J Sex Med. 2010;7:2602–7.
Wilson SK, Delk JR, Salem EA, Cleves MA. Long-term survival of inflatable penile prostheses: single surgical group experience with 2,384 first-time implants spanning two decades. J Sex Med. 2007;4:1074–9.
Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Hendin BN. Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology. 2003;62:918–21.
Dhar NB, Angermeier KW, Montague DK. Long-term mechanical reliability of AMS 700CX/CXM inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 2006;176:2599–601. discussion 601
Henry GD, Donatucci CF, Conners W, et al. An outcomes analysis of over 200 revision surgeries for penile prosthesis implantation: a multicenter study. J Sex Med. 2012;9:309–15.
Quesada ET, Light JK. The AMS 700 inflatable penile prosthesis: long-term experience with the controlled expansion cylinders. J Urol. 1993;149:46–8.
Licht MR, Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM. Cultures from genitourinary prostheses at reoperation: questioning the role of Staphylococcus epidermidis in periprosthetic infection. J Urol. 1995;154:387–90.
Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd. Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol. 1995;153:659–61.
Jarow JP. Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol. 1996;156:402–4.
Ziegelmann M, Köhler TS, Bailey GC, Miest T, Alom M, Trost L. Surgical patient selection and counseling. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:609.
Holland B, Kohler T. Minimizing penile implant infection: a literature review of patient and surgical factors. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16:81.
Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd, et al. Penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2004;172:153–6.
Bernal RM, Henry GD. Contemporary patient satisfaction rates for three-piece inflatable penile prostheses. Adv Urol. 2012;2012:707321.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Montgomery, B.D., Lomas, D.J., Ziegelmann, M.J. et al. Infection risk of undergoing multiple penile prostheses: an analysis of referred patient surgical histories. Int J Impot Res 30, 147–152 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-018-0026-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-018-0026-6
This article is cited by
-
Maximizing outcomes in penile prosthetic surgery: exploring strategies to prevent and manage infectious and non-infectious complications
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)
-
Surgical tips in difficult penile prosthetic surgery: a narrative review
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)
-
Infection rates following urologic prosthetic revision without replacement of any device components compared to partial or complete device exchange: a single-center retrospective cohort study
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)
-
Celebrating 50 years of penile implants
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)
-
Immediate salvage with inflatable penile prosthesis in an infected field is associated with a high success rate
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)