William Costerton, the pioneer of bacterial biofilm research and Wilson published a review of this subject in 2012. Recent events and false claims have prompted an update for urologists regarding the science of penile implant biofilm. The recent biofilm literature has been investigated and new conclusions regarding penile implant biofilm physiology are clarified in this review. The timeline of biofilm formation is as follows. The wound is contaminated upon incision, and the inoculum of bacteria ceases with incision closure. Almost immediately planktonic bacteria attach to the implant and secrete biofilm which alters the host’s ability to eradicate the bacteria. Infection retardant coatings impair clinical infection by common skin organisms including coagulase negative staphylococci, the most frequent offenders. In the modern era of availability of infection retardant coated implants, the increasingly rare penile implant infections are now usually caused by more virulent bugs. Antibiotic elution from the surface of the implant is a tiny dose and only truly helpful in the first 24 h. AMS and Coloplast infection retardant coatings reduce infection equally and contemporary primary implant infections are far lower in experienced implant surgeons’ practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 8 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $32.38 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Wilson SK, Costerton JW. Biofilm and penile prosthesis infections in the era of the coated implants: a review. J Sex Med. 2012;9:44–53.
Costerton JW, Stewart DS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infection. Science 1999;284:318–28.
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. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0256-2. [Epub ahead of print].
Darouiche RO. Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N. Engl J Med. 2004;350:1422–9.
Jaffer IH, Weitz JI. The blood compatibility challenge. Part 1: blood contacting medical devices: the scope of the problem. Acta Biomater. 2019;94:2–10.
Aricola CR, Alvi FI, An YH, Campoccia D, Montanaro L. Implant infections, adhesion, biofilm formation and immune evasion. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:397–409.
Selders GS, Fetz AE, Radic MZ, Bowlin GL. An overview of the role of neutrophils in innate immunity, inflammation and host-biomaterial integration. Regen Biomater. 2017;4:55–68.
McConoughey SJ, Howlin R, Granger JF, Manring MM, Calhoun JH, Shirtliff M, et al. Biofilms in periprosthetic orthopedic infections. Future Microbiol. 2014;9:987–1007.
Zhao B, van der Mei HC, Subbiahdoss G, de Vries J, Rustema-Abbing M, Kuijer R, et al. Soft tissue integration versus early biofilm formation on different dental implant materials. Dent Mater. 2014;30:716–27.
Vickery K, Hu H, Jacombs AS, Bradshaw DA, Deva AK. A review of bacterial biofilms and their role in device-associated infection. Healthc Infect. 2013;18:61–6.
Kostakioti M, Hadijifrangiskou M, Hultgren SJ. Bacterial biofilms: development dispersal and therapeutic strategies in the dawn of the post antibiotic era. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2013;3:a010306.
Silverstein AD, Henry GD, Evans B, Pasmore M, Simmons CJ, Donatucci CF. Biofilm formation on clinically non-infected penile prostheses. J Urol. 2006;176:1008–11.
Flemming HC, Wingender J, Szewzyk U, Steinberg P, Rice SA, Khjelleberg S. Biofilms and emergent form of bacterial life. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016;14:563–75.
Jefferson KK. What drives bacteria to produce a biofilm? FEMS Microbio Lett. 2004;236:163–73.
Aricola CR, Campossia D, Montanaro L. Implant infections: adhesion biofilm formation and immune evasion. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:397–409.
Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR, Carson CC, Silverstein A, Cleves MA, et al. Penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery: multicenter study. J Urol. 2004;172:153–6.
Eid JF, Wilson SK, Cleves M, Salem EA. Coated implants and the “no touch” surgical technique decreases risk of infection of inflatable penile prosthesis implantation to 0.46%. Urology. 2012;79:1310–15.
Wilson SK, Zumbe J, Henry GD, Salem EA, Cleves MA. Infection reduction using antibiotic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 2007;70:337–40.
Citci S, Nemut T, Culha MM, Yilmaz H, Ustuner M, Yavuz Y, et al. Non-infected penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery; comparison between antibiotic coated and non-coated devices. Int Braz J Urol. 2016;42:1183–9.
Mulcahy JJ, Kohler TS, Wen L, Wilson SK. Penile implant infection prevention part II: device coatings have changed the game. Int J Imp Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0338-1. [Epub ahead of print].
Carson CC, 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.
Yuan Y, Hays MP, Hardwidge PR, Kim J. Surface characteristics influencing bacterial adhesion to polymeric substrates. RSC Adv. 2017;7:14254–61.
Wilson SK, Salem EA, Costerton W. Anti-infection dip suggestions for the Coloplast Titan inflatable penile prosthesis in the era of the infection retardant coated implant. J Sex Med. 2011;8:2647–54.
Serefoglu EC, Mandava SH, Gokce A, Chouhan JD, Wilson SK, Hellstrom WJG. Long-term revision rate due to infection in hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prostheses: 11 year follow up. J Sex Med. 2012;8:2182–6.
Mandava SH, Serefoglu EC, Freier MT, Wilson SK, Hellstrom WJG. Infection retardant coated inflatable penile prostheses decrease the incidence of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2012;188:1855–60.
Wilson SK, Delk JR. Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol. 1995;153:659–61.
Kava BR, Kanagarajah P, Ayyathurai R. Contemporary revision penile prosthesis surgery is not associated with a high risk of implant colonization or infection: a single surgeon series. J Sex Med. 2011;8:1540–5.
Jani K, Smith C, Delk JR, Carson CC, Donatucci CF, Cleves MA, et al. Infection retardant coatings impact bacterial presence in penile prosthesis surgery: a multicenter study. Urology. 2018;119:104–8.
Conflict of interest
SKW is consultant for AMT, Coloplast, International Medical Devices and Uramix. Lecturer for AMS. MSG is consultant for Coloplast.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Wilson, S.K., Gross, M.S. Biofilm and penile prosthesis infections in the era of coated implants: 2021 update. Int J Impot Res 34, 411–415 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00423-w