Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Comment on Prospective analysis of cultures from the furlow insertion tool: a possible etiology for penile prosthesis infections

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 33, page 382 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

The Original Article was published on 18 March 2020

This paper is an excellent addition to the literature surrounding penile prosthesis infection prevention [1]. The authors have identified an aspect of penile prosthesis surgery, similar to the use of chlorhexidine–alcohol skin prep or no-touch technique, that surgeons can seize upon to reduce the possibility of infection [2, 3]. This study clarifies the potential infection risk lurking within the indispensable Furlow passer. The authors investigated this phenomenon using appropriate observational methods and discovered visible residue and concerning rates of unseen bacteria. They offer a preemptive solution that surgeons can implement even before making incision. Like parachutists, penile implanters should check our equipment before we use it!

These results should encourage implant surgeons and industry to innovate answers to the Furlow problem. Reducing infection risk starts with research and continues with development of equipment that mitigates risk as much as possible across all levels of surgical expertise. Experienced prosthetic urologists may be savvy enough to ensure that their tools are sterilized properly. Lower volume implant surgeons may not be so thorough. Options include a disposable Furlow tool, as the authors suggest, or perhaps an entirely new method of cylinder deployment. The best outcomes for our patients depend on continuing to decrease penile prosthesis infection risk by every possible method.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Yafi FA, Furr J, El-Khatib FM, van Renterghem K, Venturino L, Andrianne R. et al. Prospective analysis of cultures from the furlow insertion tool: a possible etiology for penile prosthesis infections. Int J Impot Res.

  2. Yeung LL, Grewal S, Bullock A, Lai HH, Brandes SB. A comparison of chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for eliminating skin flora before genitourinary prosthetic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2013;189:136–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Eid JF, Wilson SK, Cleves M, Salem EA. Coated implants and “no touch” surgical technique decreases risk of infection in inflatable penile prosthesis implantation to 0.46%. Urology. 2012;79:1310–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Urology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, PA, USA

    Martin S. Gross

Authors
  1. Martin S. Gross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin S. Gross.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gross, M.S. Comment on Prospective analysis of cultures from the furlow insertion tool: a possible etiology for penile prosthesis infections. Int J Impot Res 33, 382 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0281-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0281-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links